Retrieve and search team members to assign as custodians for asset custody or bookings. Filter results by organization and search term with pagination.
List/search team members (needed as custodians for custody and bookings).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-based) | |
| orgId | No | Workspace/organization ID. Defaults to SHELF_ORG_ID or your current workspace. | |
| search | No | ||
| perPage | No | Items per page |
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 and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results feed custody and booking flows, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result size limits, or whether the list is scoped to a single workspace.
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 front-loaded sentence with the action first and the motivating context second; no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical is doing guidance work that could be stated more directly.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should ideally say what a member record contains or how results are paginated. It covers the 'why' (custodians) adequately but leaves the agent without return-shape expectations for a four-parameter list tool.
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 75%: page, perPage and orgId carry their own descriptions, while 'search' has none. The description's 'List/search' hints that a search term is supported but adds no syntax, matching behavior, or scope details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does most of the work.
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 pair (list/search) and resource (team members), which is unambiguous and does not overlap with any sibling tool such as shelf_list_assets or shelf_whoami. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings explicitly, but the resource is unique enough that differentiation is unnecessary.
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 parenthetical 'needed as custodians for custody and bookings' implies when the tool is useful, i.e. when you need member identities for shelf_assign_custody or booking operations. That is contextual usage, but it is stated as a reason rather than an explicit when-to-use rule and gives no exclusions or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.