Retrieve paginated lists of end-user accounts associated with your Growatt account to manage or monitor solar installations.
List end-user accounts managed by this Growatt account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, starting at 1. | |
| perpage | No | Results per page. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat those. It adds the scoping detail 'managed by this Growatt account' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior or response limits, which are partially covered by the schema and output schema.
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?
The description is a single well-formed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose ('List end-user accounts') and immediately provides the scope ('managed by this Growatt account').
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 simple read-only list operation with two optional, fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. The annotations cover safety properties, and the schema covers pagination inputs, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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% for both parameters (page and perpage), including defaults and minimums, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no new semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('end-user accounts managed by this Growatt account'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_plants or register_user. It states exactly what the tool returns and the scope of those accounts.
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?
The description names the resource and scope, making it evident this is the list operation for end-user accounts in contrast to user-management siblings like register_user, modify_user, and check_user. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.