Retrieve test users for a Meta Quest developer organization to review who has test access. Optionally specify an organization ID or name; otherwise uses the selected organization.
List test users for an organization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org | No | Organization id or name; defaults to the selected org |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation via 'List' but does not disclose permissions, pagination behavior, whether only test users are returned, or any other operational traits.
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, efficient sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded. There is no wasted wording.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks usage guidance and behavioral context. It does not explain what a 'test user' is or what the listing returns, though the tool's simplicity limits the gap.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the sole optional 'org' parameter is fully documented in the schema as an organization id or name defaulting to the selected org. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('test users') scoped to an organization. It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling list operations such as list_orgs, list_apps, and list_channels, though it does not elaborate beyond the name-level distinction.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The only implied usage is that it lists test users, which an agent could infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.