list_peopleFind users by name or email to get their id, name, and email for use as assignees or in user filters.
Find users (id, name, email) to use as assignees or in user filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| emails | No | Match exact email addresses | |
| search | No | Search by name or email | |
| pageSize | No | ||
| includeClients | No | ||
| includeCollaborators | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool's non-destructive nature is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. It simply restates the operation without enriching the agent's understanding of runtime behavior.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and the output fields. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing; 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?
The tool has 5 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides no guidance on how to use the parameters or what the response format looks like beyond naming the fields. It does not explain the role of includeClients or includeCollaborators, nor pagination via pageSize. This is inadequate for an agent to call the tool correctly without additional inference.
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 only 40% (emails and search have descriptions; pageSize, includeClients, includeCollaborators do not). The description itself does not describe any parameter or explain how they influence results. With low schema coverage and zero description support, the agent cannot infer the meaning or effect of the undocumented parameters, so this is a critical 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Find' and the resource 'users', and even specifies the output fields (id, name, email) and the intended use case (assignees or user filters). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which target user lookup.
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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'to use as assignees or in user filters'. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling set makes it obvious that no other tool serves this purpose, so the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.