Retrieve users in the current portal to resolve owner names for tasks and bugs.
List users in the current portal — useful for resolving owner names.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_users"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that this is a scoped read operation against the current portal and hints at the output's usefulness, but it does not describe return format, pagination, or any limitations. It is adequate but not richly 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?
A single sentence with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded and the purpose clause earns its place by explaining why an agent would call this tool.
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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description is nearly complete: an agent knows what to call and why. It does not explicitly state that a portal must already be selected, though the sibling tools (switch_portal, list_selected_portals) make that context discoverable.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about arguments. The phrase 'current portal' refers to implicit context rather than parameters; the baseline for a no-parameter tool 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 uses a specific verb and resource — 'List users in the current portal' — and adds a concrete purpose ('useful for resolving owner names'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_portals, list_projects, and list_tags.
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?
It provides a clear use case (resolving owner names) and specifies the scope ('current portal'), so an agent knows when this list is relevant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling context makes the distinction straightforward.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.