Retrieve user accounts and their group memberships on Axis IP cameras.
Get the list of user accounts and their groups.
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": "get_users"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., pagination, permission requirements, or response structure), providing minimal value beyond the structured data.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a no-parameter 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally complete: it states what is retrieved ('user accounts and their groups'). However, it could detail the structure of returned data or mention that no filtering is supported. The lack of output schema does not necessitate elaboration, but the description remains spartan.
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% (trivially). Per guidelines, 0 parameters earn a baseline score of 4. The description does not add parameter details, but none are needed.
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 clearly states 'Get the list of user accounts and their groups,' specifying a concrete verb ('Get') and resource ('user accounts and groups'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_user or remove_user by focusing on retrieval.
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 implies usage: to retrieve the list of users and groups. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives (e.g., use update_user to modify users). This is adequate for a simple listing but lacks depth.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.