List people assigned to action plans, filter by person or action plan ID, and paginate results to review assigned follow-up contacts.
List people assigned to action plans
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination | |
| personId | No | Filter by person ID | |
| actionPlanId | No | Filter by action plan ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing on top: no return shape, no pagination behavior, no note about ordering or what 'assigned' implies (e.g. whether unassigned plan members appear).
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriately sized for a simple list endpoint. It is slightly too terse rather than verbose, but nothing in it is wasted.
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 four-parameter, fully documented read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials but leaves the distinguishing domain question open: how this differs from listAutomationsPeople and what the result represents. Adequate but with a clearly identifiable gap.
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 limit, offset, personId and actionPlanId are each self-documented, justifying baseline 3. The description contributes no additional meaning, such as whether the two filters combine with AND semantics or whether omitting both returns all assignments.
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 ('List people') with scope ('assigned to action plans'), which is clear on its own. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like listAutomationsPeople or listActionPlans, so the agent has to infer which list covers this relationship.
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 when-to-use guidance, no stated alternatives, and no exclusions. The nearest sibling, listAutomationsPeople, is functionally parallel but the description gives no cue about which to pick; the agent must infer the distinction from the action-plan/automation vocabulary alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.