Retrieve workspace members from a self-hosted Docmost wiki using optional search text or cursor pagination.
List workspace members.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, 1-100 | |
| query | No | Optional member search text | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from meta.nextCursor |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description adds no new behavioral context. It does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, or response format, even though the schema's cursor and limit parameters imply pagination.
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, focused sentence with zero filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
With no output schema and only a terse description, the agent is left without information about return shape, pagination metadata, or how this differs from list_space_members. For a list endpoint with optional pagination parameters, more context is needed for confident invocation.
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 100%: each parameter (limit, query, cursor) has a clear description. The main description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('List') and resource ('workspace members'), clearly identifying the operation. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool list_space_members, so sibling differentiation is left to inference from the resource word 'workspace'.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_space_members, list_spaces, or get_current_user. The description only states the action with no context, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.