Fetch a paginated list of Voximplant users. Specify count (1-200) and offset to control the result set.
Получить список пользователей Voximplant.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Количество записей (1..200) | |
| offset | No | Смещение (offset) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / properties / count / descriptionPrevious value: -"Количество пользователей"New value: +"Количество записей (1..200)"Input schema / properties / offset / descriptionPrevious value: -"Смещение"New value: +"Смещение (offset)"Input schema / properties / offset / minimumAdded value: +0v1.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get', implying a read operation, but does not mention pagination behavior, potential large result sets, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. The agent gains no insight into operational characteristics beyond a basic fetch.
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 concise sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word earns its place. Although extremely sparse, conciseness is excellent.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 documented parameters, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It fails to indicate the return format, any limits beyond parameter bounds, or pagination semantics. With no output schema, the agent is left to infer the response structure, which is a significant 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for count and offset including defaults and constraints. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters affect behavior, so the baseline 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 action ('get') and the resource ('list of users'), identifying it as a Voximplant operation. It is distinct from sibling tools that target other resources like skills, call history, or SMS. However, it lacks any additional context to differentiate it beyond the resource name, which is straightforward in this case.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. While the purpose is obvious given the resource, the description offers no situational context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.