Retrieve cached user records with pagination to control skip and take limits.
List all cached users with optional skip/take pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Records to skip (default 0) | |
| take | No | Records to return (default 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a read-only list operation with pagination, but does not mention whether it reads from a live source or a cache, what ordering is applied, whether results are snapshots, or any side effects. For a tool without annotations, this is a notable gap.
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 that states the core purpose and mentions pagination with no wasted words. Every part of the description contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
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 simple list-with-pagination tool, the description covers the essential behavior and the schema covers the parameters. The main missing element is clarification of what the response looks like and whether the list is sorted or reflects a cached snapshot, but the overall definition is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 input schema already documents both skip and take with defaults, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds only the concept of pagination and does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'List', the resource 'all cached users', and the pagination behavior. It distinguishes itself from cached_users_get_by_id by emphasizing the 'all' scope.
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 implies this is the tool for enumerating all cached users, and the pagination parameters indicate batch retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over cached_users_get_by_id or when pagination should be used, leaving some usage context implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.