Retrieve a paginated list of VCF Automation users with filtering, sorting, and paging controls to find and manage user accounts.
Get a list of users. GET /cloudapi/1.0.0/users
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | Page to fetch, zero offset. | |
| filter | No | Filter for a query. FIQL format. | |
| sortAsc | No | Field to use for ascending sort | |
| pageSize | Yes | Results per page to fetch. | |
| sortDesc | No | Field to use for descending sort |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the raw path and nothing about scope (which organization's users are listed), pagination behavior, or result ordering — no value beyond structured fields.
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?
Two short lines, front-loaded with the action; no filler. It is terse to the point of omitting scope information, but nothing is wasted.
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?
With a fully documented schema and rich annotations, the description need not explain return values or safety. However, for a list endpoint it never states the scope of users returned, which matters when dozens of similar user-listing siblings exist.
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%, with page, pageSize, filter (FIQL), sortAsc and sortDesc all documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable at full coverage but not enriching; baseline 3.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get a list of users') and gives the underlying endpoint, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish the tool from nearby siblings such as provider_get_user, provider_query_group_users, or identity_search_users.
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?
There is no statement of when this tool should be used versus the many other user-related siblings (search, group users, LDAP search, get-by-id). The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.