list_usersRetrieve a list of HestiaCP users by executing v-list-users, returning results in JSON or plain text.
List HestiaCP users. Executes verified command v-list-users.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | json |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| command | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it 'executes verified command v-list-users,' which hints at the underlying action but does not disclose output behavior, permissions, or side effects beyond what annotations already convey. With annotations present, the description provides marginal additional behavioral context.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence about the verified command is brief. It is concise, though the second sentence could be considered slightly redundant; still, it earns high marks for its minimal structure.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description is largely adequate. However, it omits any mention of the format parameter, pagination, or whether it returns only a subset of users. It also provides no routing to get_user for single-user lookup, leaving some contextual gaps.
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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single optional 'format' parameter with enum ['json', 'plain'] and default 'json'. The description does not mention this parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage. While the parameter is simple and self-documenting in the schema, the description adds no meaning beyond what the annotated schema already provides.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List HestiaCP users.' It also mentions 'Executes verified command v-list-users,' which adds implementation specificity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_user or other list_* tools, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_user or list_web_domains. The description only says 'List HestiaCP users,' which implies it is for retrieving all users, but there is no explicit when-to-use context or exclusion of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.