List Members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: members, roles, teams, and SSO cannot be changed through MCP by design, and humans perform those actions in the web app. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent avoid attempting unsupported mutations.

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 efficient sentences with no filler. The core action and returned fields are front-loaded, and the read-only/web-app context earns its place by preventing misuse.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, the returned fields, and the context requirement. It does not describe pagination or ordering, but those are minor given the simple shape of the tool and the lack of an output schema.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description's note about requiring organization context is not parameter-specific but is still useful setup information.

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 ('List') and resource ('the organization's members'), and enumerates the returned attributes: role, custom role, join date, and last login. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_custom_roles, which target a different resource.

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?

Provides clear context: this is for reading organization members and requires organization context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or give exclusion criteria, but it does signal that member management is intentionally outside MCP's scope, which prevents inappropriate use.

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