Retrieve all user accounts configured in Nessus to audit access, review permissions, and manage security roles within your vulnerability management environment.
List users configured in Nessus.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about permissions required, whether disabled/system users are included, result size, or pagination. 'List' implies a safe read, but that is inferred rather than stated.
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?
A single short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and with zero input parameters there is little else to specify. It is nearly complete for a trivial list call, losing a point only for omitting any note on result scope or permissions.
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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case: there is no parameter syntax for the description to compensate for. The description's scope statement ('users configured in Nessus') is consistent with the empty schema.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (users configured in Nessus), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling list tools such as list_nessus_agents and list_nessus_policies. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings or clarify scope (e.g. all users vs. active users), so it falls just short of a 5.
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 gives no indication of when to call this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. For a zero-parameter list tool embedded among many Nessus listing tools, some routing guidance would have been valuable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.