Retrieve a paginated list of users (team members) from RD Station CRM. Specify page and limit to control results.
List users (team members) from RD Station CRM.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, starting at 1 | |
| limit | No | Results per page |
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' conveys a read-only operation, but the description does not mention pagination behavior, response format, permissions, or rate limits. This is a meaningful gap for an unannotated tool.
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 filler. It clearly names the action and resource without redundancy.
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 simple, with two optional and fully documented parameters, so a minimal description is acceptable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves pagination behavior and return shape unspecified, making it merely adequate rather than complete.
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?
Both parameters (page and limit) are fully documented in the input schema with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat their semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because the description adds no extra parameter context.
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 states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('users (team members)'), and product scope ('RD Station CRM'). It distinguishes this tool from the sibling contact, organization, and deal tools by naming a unique resource.
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 use when the agent needs to retrieve team members, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. Since there is no sibling user-listing tool, the ambiguity is low, but the guidance is still only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.