Retrieve all workspace members with IDs, names, roles, and avatars. Use this data to resolve member names to IDs before assigning tasks.
List all members of a workspace. Returns member IDs, names, roles, and avatars. Use this to resolve member names to IDs before assigning users to tasks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspace_id | Yes | The workspace ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states what the tool returns ('member IDs, names, roles, and avatars') and implies a read-only listing operation. It does not discuss pagination or error behavior, but for a simple list tool this is reasonably transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The action and resource come first, followed by return values and a practical use case, all in a compact and scannable form.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource, scope, return fields, and intended usage. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, workspace_id, is described as 'The workspace ID.' The description adds workspace context but no new parameter-level details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all members of a workspace'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also enumerates the returned data (IDs, names, roles, avatars), which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_tasks or list_workspaces.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Use this to resolve member names to IDs before assigning users to tasks.' This provides clear context, though it does not spell out when not to use it or name alternative tools explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.