AliMail Admin MCP

查询部门成员

list_department_users

Read-onlyIdempotent

List direct members of a specified department with offset/limit pagination, up to 100 per page. Use it to browse departmental users and page through large member lists.

Instructions

查询指定部门的直属成员（offset/limit 分页，limit 最大 100）。如需含子部门成员，可用 list_users 的 filter (departmentId=xxx*)。

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "list_department_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	部门 ID；使用 $root 表示组织根部门
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`select`	No	透传 $select，指定额外返回的用户字段
`managed`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioural detail that only direct members are returned (not the subtree) and that results are offset/limit paginated. It doesn't describe ordering or the response shape, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, no filler: the core scope statement comes first, the alternative routing second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 5-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential scope, pagination and alternative-route information. The gap is the unexplained `managed` and `select` parameters, which an agent must infer from the schema alone.

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 coverage is only 40%, so the description needs to compensate. It explains pagination semantics via offset/limit and reiterates the limit ceiling of 100, but says nothing about the `managed` or `select` parameters, which remain undocumented in both schema and description. Partial compensation earns a middle score.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource — lists the DIRECT members of a given department — and explicitly contrasts this with the recursive behaviour available via list_users. An agent can distinguish it from list_users without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit routing rule: if sub-department members are needed, use list_users with filter (departmentId=xxx*), including the concrete filter syntax. That is a named alternative plus the condition that selects it.

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

Deploy Server