base_account_get_all_usersRetrieve the complete list of employees from Base Account, including their ID, username, email, name, job title, and department.
Lấy danh sách tất cả nhân viên trong doanh nghiệp từ Base Account. Trả về thông tin id, username, email, tên, chức danh, phòng ban...
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| access_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists return fields and the read-only nature of listing, but it does not mention authentication needs via access_token, pagination, rate limits, or any other runtime behavior.
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?
One concise, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and key returned data. No filler or repetition.
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?
The tool is a simple read operation with an output schema and one optional parameter, so the description is close to adequate. However, it omits access-token semantics and usage distinctions from sibling tools, leaving some context gaps for an agent.
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 0%, and the description does not mention the access_token parameter at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description provides no guidance on how it is used, whether it is required in practice, or what happens when it is null.
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 ('Lấy danh sách' = get list) and a precise resource ('tất cả nhân viên' = all employees), and specifies the returned fields. Its scope 'all employees' clearly distinguishes it from siblings like base_account_get_direct_reports and base_account_search_user.
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 intended use is implied: call this when you need the full list of employees. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives such as search_user or get_direct_reports, or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.