Motion MCP Server

motion_users

List users in a workspace or team, or retrieve the current authenticated user's information.

Instructions

Manage users and get current user information

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "operation": "<operation>"
    },
    "name": "motion_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`operation`	Yes	Operation to perform
`workspaceId`	No	Workspace ID (optional for list operation, ignored for current)
`workspaceName`	No	Workspace name (alternative to workspaceId, ignored for current)
`teamId`	No	Team ID to filter users by (optional for list operation)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.8.0Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It calls the tool 'manage users' which implies mutating operations, but the schema only exposes read-only operations (list, current). It doesn't disclose permissions, side effects, or return behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it lacks substance and doesn't effectively use its brevity to communicate key information. It's not poorly structured, but it's under-specified.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has two distinct operations and multiple optional parameters, but the description provides no context for these. No output schema exists, so the description should clarify what to expect from 'list' and 'current', but it doesn't.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't explain operation selection or parameter relationships.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the vague verb 'manage' which suggests a broader CRUD scope than the actual operations (list and current). It does mention 'get current user information' which is specific, but overall it doesn't clearly define the tool's scope or distinguish it from sibling motion tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when to choose 'list' vs 'current'. The description provides no context about selection, prerequisites, or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server