ca_membersLists current Community Archive members who uploaded their archive, with cursor-based pagination up to 1,000 per page for browsing member records.
Current Community Archive members (people who uploaded their archive). Cursor-paged, up to 1,000 per page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | next_cursor from a previous call. | |
| max_pages | No | Pages to follow in one call (default 1). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful pagination behavior and a 1,000-per-page maximum, but does not disclose return shape, auth requirements, or rate-limit behavior.
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?
Two compact sentences with the key resource definition front-loaded and the pagination constraint immediately after. No unnecessary text.
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?
For a simple read-only list tool, the description covers the resource and pagination basics. However, it lacks routing guidance versus sibling tools and does not describe the returned member fields, which matters because there is no output schema.
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 coverage is 67%, and the description clarifies that results are cursor-paged and capped at 1,000 per page, reinforcing the limit and cursor parameters. It does not explain max_pages or add much beyond the schema's existing cursor and max_pages descriptions.
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?
Clearly identifies the resource as current Community Archive members and clarifies that these are people who uploaded their archive. It is specific enough to distinguish the resource, but it does not explain how it differs from sibling ca_find_people.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not mention alternatives such as ca_find_people. Usage is only implied by the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.