list_usersRetrieve users from ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus with pagination, sorting, field selection, and search criteria. Use it to browse or filter technician and people records via the v3 REST API.
List users.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list_info | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether the call is read-only, how pagination behaves, what the nested list_info structure controls, or what is returned, making it entirely uninformative for a tool that takes a complex nested object.
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 one-sentence text avoids verbosity, but it is under-specified rather than concise. There is no structure or front-loading of useful information, so brevity here reflects omission, not efficiency.
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 tool with a nested object parameter, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies none of the detail an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It is not remotely complete.
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 0% and the description never mentions the single list_info parameter or any of its fields (row_count, sort_field, sort_order, start_index, search_criteria, etc.). With no param explanation at all, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.
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 verb (list) and a resource (users), so an agent understands the basic operation. However, it does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like get_user or from the many other 'list_*' tools, and it lacks any scope or capability details.
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 mention of alternatives such as get_user for a single record, and no exclusions. The description leaves the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.