Fetch users with filters for role, status, email, and pagination to manage access in event space operations.
Get a list of users. API token required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | Filter by user role | |
| No | Filter by email address | ||
| limit | No | Number of users to return | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination | |
| status | No | Filter by user status |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the auth requirement and implies read-only via 'Get', but says nothing about default user scope (e.g., whether deleted users are included), pagination behavior, or filtering semantics.
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 sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, the second flags an essential auth precondition. Both sentences earn their place and the key information is front-loaded.
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 list tool with 5 filter parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. An agent doesn't know the default result scope, pagination behavior, response format, or how filters interact.
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%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get a list of users'), which clearly identifies the operation and matches the tool name. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools that also touch users (get_deletion_requests, restore_user, update_user_role), so it doesn't reach the top score.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives; no exclusions or sibling comparisons. The 'API token required' note is a useful precondition but doesn't help an agent select among the many list/read siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.