Retrieve all user accounts defined in Cloudera Data Visualization (CDV).
List all users defined in CDV.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_users"
}
}| 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 exist, so the description carries full responsibility. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, authentication requirements, data sensitivity, or error conditions. The description is too minimal to inform safe and correct usage.
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 extremely concise at six words, which effectively communicates the primary purpose. However, it could include more context (e.g., what CDV stands for) without sacrificing conciseness. It is front-loaded and not verbose.
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?
Given the tool is simple (no parameters) and an output schema exists (covering return values), the description is minimally complete. However, it omits any explanation of what 'CDV' is, which may confuse agents unfamiliar with the domain. A bit more context would improve completeness.
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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. According to guidelines, no parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable since there are none.
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 explicitly states 'List all users defined in CDV,' which includes a specific verb ('list'), resource ('users'), and scope ('all users in CDV'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools for other entities.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_user' or other list tools. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.