Fetch LogicMonitor user accounts using filters for username or raw expressions, with pagination to manage large result sets.
List users from LogicMonitor
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| filter | No | Raw filter expression (overrides name_filter). Example: username~admin,status:active | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| name_filter | No | Filter by username (substring match) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as pagination behavior, filtering capabilities, or return fields. Since annotations cover the safety aspects, the description doesn't contradict but also doesn't add value beyond the basic action.
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 concise sentence that states the action and resource without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple list operation. Every word earns its place.
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?
This is a simple read-only list operation with four optional parameters, all documented in the schema. Annotations cover the safety profile. The description, while minimal, is sufficient for an agent to understand the purpose. It doesn't describe the return format, but for a list of users, it's reasonably obvious. Given the simplicity and the schema coverage, the description is complete enough, though it could mention pagination.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage; each parameter (limit, filter, offset, name_filter) has a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the description does not need to compensate. Baseline 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 'List users from LogicMonitor' states a specific verb (List) and resource (users) with clear context (LogicMonitor). It unambiguously indicates a collection operation, distinguishing it from the singular get_user by its plural form. The purpose is crystal clear.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_user or create_user. It implies that if you need a list of users, this is the tool, but there is no mention of when not to use it or what other tools are for. A brief note about the singular alternative would improve clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.