Retrieve the list of users available for task assignment to identify the correct assignee.
Get available users (for assignment).
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": "get_users"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get available users' but does not explain what 'available' means, whether the response includes all user fields, or any authentication or filtering behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured metadata.
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, concise sentence that leads with the verb 'Get' and immediately conveys the resource and purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or extraneous detail.
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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the only source of context. It adequately conveys the tool's intent but fails to specify what information is returned (e.g., user IDs, names) or any response structure. This is a minimal but viable description for a simple list tool.
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 has 0 parameters, so the description carries no burden of parameter explanation. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters. The description does not need to compensate for any schema information.
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 'Get available users (for assignment)' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'users', with a parenthetical clarifying the intended use case. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve other resources like statuses or priorities.
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 phrase '(for assignment)' provides clear context that this tool is intended for retrieving users who can be assigned tasks, and there are no other user-listing siblings to differentiate. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools for other purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.