List organization users and filter by email or group to find members or check group membership. Paginate large directories.
List users of the organization (up to 10 000 — use get_users_relative beyond). Filter by email or group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | User uid to start from | |
| No | Find user by email | ||
| group | No | Filter by group id | |
| expand | No | "groups" to include user groups | |
| perPage | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the 10,000-result ceiling and the org-wide scope, plus the implied cursor semantics of starting from a user id. It doesn't mention permission requirements, which would be the remaining gap.
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?
A single sentence with the resource first, the cap second, and the fallback third. The parenthetical carries non-obvious information (the limit) rather than filler, so every clause 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?
For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, result ceiling, filters, and the alternative sibling. Return shape and pagination mechanics are not described, but with readOnlyHint set and schema-level param docs, an agent has enough to call it 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 80%, so the schema already documents id, email, group and expand. The description only re-confirms the email and group filters and adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the structured fields, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (users of the organization) and immediately scopes it with a hard cap (up to 10,000). It also names the sibling to use beyond that cap (get_users_relative), so an agent can distinguish it from get_current_user and get_users_relative without opening any schema.
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?
Gives a clear routing rule: use this up to 10,000 users, otherwise use get_users_relative. It also names the two supported filter dimensions (email, group). It stops short of stating when-not to use it otherwise (e.g. single-user lookup via get_user), so it's clear context but not exhaustive exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.