List all organization-level managers and their roles. Optionally filter by a specific role key to see who holds it.
List users who hold org-level manager (administrator) grants, with their manager roles. Optionally filter to a single role key (e.g. ORG_OWNER) to see who holds it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | Optional manager role key to filter by (e.g. "ORG_OWNER", "ORG_USER_MANAGER") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results include each user's manager roles, which is useful return-content context, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or permission requirements. Adequate but not rich given the low bar set by annotations.
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 with zero filler: the first front-loads what is returned, the second covers the optional filter. Nothing is redundant and 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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the resource, the returned fields, and the filter behavior. It omits result shape (pagination, ordering, limits), which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and its safe annotations.
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 100%, so the single 'role' parameter is already fully documented in the schema with examples. The description's mention of the role-key filter and the ORG_OWNER example largely restates the schema, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List users who hold org-level manager (administrator) grants, with their manager roles.' This clearly separates it from the sibling zitadel_list_org_manager_roles, which enumerates role definitions rather than holders. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
It explains the purpose of the optional filter ('to see who holds it'), which implies the use case for a role-scoped query versus listing all managers. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over zitadel_list_user_grants or zitadel_list_org_manager_roles, leaving the routing decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.