List users beyond the 10,000-user limit using relative pagination. Pass the last user uid as id to fetch the next page.
List users with relative pagination (works beyond the 10 000-user limit of get_users). Pass the last user uid as "id" to get the next page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | User uid to start from | |
| 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 non-trivial behavioral detail the schema doesn't: the pagination model is cursor-based (relative), requiring the last returned uid to advance. It does not describe return shape or end-of-list signaling, but the pagination mechanism is the key behavioral fact.
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 tight sentences, purpose front-loaded and the pagination mechanic immediately after. Every clause carries information; nothing is filler.
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?
No output schema exists, yet for a read-only list tool with covered safety annotations, the description supplies purpose, the sibling comparison, and the pagination contract. The main omission is guidance on how the caller knows pagination has ended.
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 67%, and the description adds real meaning to the id parameter beyond the schema's terse "User uid to start from" by explaining it should be the last user's uid to fetch the next page. The expand and perPage params rely on their schema text, with perPage lacking any description, leaving a small gap.
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) and uniquely differentiates itself from the sibling get_users by naming the 10,000-user limit that motivates this tool. An agent can distinguish it from get_users without opening either 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?
Clears up when to prefer this over get_users (works beyond the 10k limit) and gives the operational condition for the next page (pass last uid). It doesn't explicitly instruct when to start with get_users versus this tool, but the condition that selects it is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.