Retrieve a complete list of all system users to manage accounts on TrueNAS Scale.
List all system users.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_users"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation with no side effects. The description does not mention potential behavior like authentication requirements, pagination, or ordering. While the tool is simple with no parameters, this minimal disclosure is sufficient but not exemplary.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential information efficiently, fitting the rubric's expectation that every sentence should earn 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?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is complete in explaining what the tool does (list all users). It does not detail the output format, but that is handled by the schema. The description is adequate for a simple list operation.
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 tool has zero parameters (schema coverage 100% trivially). According to the rubric, baseline is 4 for 0 parameters. The description adds meaning by stating 'all system users', clarifying the scope beyond the empty schema. This is a reasonable addition, earning a score of 4.
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 'List all system users.' clearly states the action (list) and resource (system users). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_user (single user) or create_user (creation), making it easy for an AI agent to select this tool for retrieving all users.
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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools (e.g., get_user for a single user) implies that list_users is for retrieving all users. The description lacks explicit when-not statements or alternative suggestions, resulting in an adequate but not strong score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.