Lists team members and returns their name, email, role, status, and last login, with optional performance stats for assigned contacts and tasks.
List team members with optional performance stats. Returns name, email, role, status, and last login.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 1) | |
| per_page | No | Results per page | |
| include_stats | No | Include contactsAssigned and tasksAssigned counts |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields and the optional stats behavior, but says nothing about permissions required, whether the list is scoped to the caller's team, or pagination defaults beyond what the schema states.
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 zero waste, value statement first and return-shape second. Well 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?
With no output schema, listing the returned fields is genuinely useful and the three optional params are adequately covered by the schema. Only missing piece is scoping/permission context, which is minor for a simple list tool.
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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'optional performance stats' loosely corresponds to include_stats but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema's own description of contactsAssigned and tasksAssigned counts.
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 team members') and names the returned fields. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as conduyt_get_user or conduyt_get_user_stats.
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?
'Optional performance stats' implies when to set include_stats, and the listing purpose is implied. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or direction to alternatives like conduyt_get_user for a single member.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.