Skip to main content
Glama
hnegi01

fes-mcp

by hnegi01
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

access_management.users_per_group

access_management_users_per_group
Read-only

Retrieve users in a specific group or all group memberships. Provide group_name for one group's members; omit it to return every (group, user) membership.

Instructions

Retrieve group memberships — one group's members, or every membership. Returns one flat row per (group, user) membership. With group_name the rows are that group's members; without it, every membership on the instance is returned (ask get_groups for the per-group view). Everyone and All users in system are omitted from the all-groups view: Sisense fills both with every user, so they restate get_users_all rather than describing group structure. Naming either one still returns its members. The rule across the SDK: **targeted questions give complete answers; only the … Returns: list[dict[str, Any]] | dict[str, Any] One row per (group, user) membership, each with GROUP_ID, GROUP_NAME, USER_ID, USER_NAME, EMAIL, FIRST_NAME, LAST_NAME, IS_ACTIVE, ROLE_ID, …

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
group_nameNoThe name of the group whose members to list. Omit for all memberships. A name that matches no group returns ``{"error": "..."}`` naming it — never a silent empty list. Naming ``Everyone`` or ``All users in system`` returns their members — an explicit request is always honored, even though the all-groups view omits them.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / group_name / description
      Previous value: -"The name of the group whose members to list."New value: +"The name of the group whose members to list. Omit for all memberships. A name that matches no group returns ``{\"error\": \"...\"}`` naming it — never a silent empty list. Naming ``Everyone`` or ``All users in system`` returns their members — an explicit request is always honored, even though the all-groups view omits them."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "group_name"
-]New value: +[]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark this read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: flat-row semantics, omission of synthetic groups in the all-groups view, honoring explicit requests for those groups, and a non-silent error for unmatched group names. It also discloses the return shape and fields despite no output schema, which is valuable context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and mode distinction, and most sentences earn their place by explaining edge cases. It loses a point because some content repeats the schema's group_name notes and the final sentence is truncated ('only the …'), leaving a dangling rule that does not contribute.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-optional-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return format, field list, error behavior, and alternative tools, so an agent can call it correctly. The incomplete closing sentence and the absence of any mention of pagination or limits are minor gaps, so it is strong but not perfect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already documents group_name with 100% coverage, including omit behavior, error behavior, and Everyone/All users handling. The description mostly reflects those same semantics rather than adding new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve group memberships' and immediately clarifies the two modes (one group vs. every membership). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_groups by noting this tool returns 'one flat row per (group, user) membership' while get_groups gives the per-group view, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to omit vs. provide group_name and points to the alternative get_groups for a per-group view. It also explains that the all-groups view omits Everyone and All users in system because those restate get_users_all, preventing misuse of this tool for all-user queries.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools