get_usersFetch all fake users for testing. Returns name, username, email, address, phone, website, and company details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of users returned | |
| users | Yes | Array of fake users |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Number of users returned",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "users": {
+ "description": "Array of fake users",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "address": {
+ "description": "User's address information",
+ "properties": {
+ "city": {
+ "description": "City name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "geo": {
+ "description": "Geographic coordinates",
+ "properties": {
+ "lat": {
+ "description": "Latitude",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "lng": {
+ "description": "Longitude",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "lat",
+ "lng"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "street": {
+ "description": "Street address",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "suite": {
+ "description": "Suite or apartment number",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "zipcode": {
+ "description": "Postal code",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "street",
+ "suite",
+ "city",
+ "zipcode",
+ "geo"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "company": {
+ "description": "User's company information",
+ "properties": {
+ "bs": {
+ "description": "Company business statement",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "catch_phrase": {
+ "description": "Company catch phrase",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Company name",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "catch_phrase",
+ "bs"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "email": {
+ "description": "User's email address",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "User ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "User's full name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "phone": {
+ "description": "User's phone number",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "username": {
+ "description": "User's username",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "website": {
+ "description": "User's website URL",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "username",
+ "email",
+ "phone",
+ "website",
+ "address",
+ "company"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "count",
+ "users"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by listing the returned fields (name, username, email, etc.), providing useful context beyond the 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, purpose, and returned data. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
With zero parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the purpose, scope, and return payload. No critical gaps are apparent for a simple test utility.
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?
There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying 'all fake users', implying that no filtering is applied and the tool returns the full set.
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 ('Fetch all fake users') and the purpose ('for testing'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_posts and get_comments by specifying the resource as 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?
The phrase 'for testing' provides clear context on when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It is clear enough for an agent to infer its intended use in test scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, and ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all serve natural-language question answering. The JSONPlaceholder get_* tools are distinct but introduce an unrelated domain, making tool selection ambiguous in practice.
All names use lowercase snake_case, which is a consistent style, but there's no uniform verb_noun pattern. Tools mix action-first names (get_posts, remember, resolve_entity) with noun-oriented names (entity_profile, deep_research, pipeworx_trending). The naming is readable but not highly predictable.
35 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. The set includes a full suite of Pipeworx/Polymarket tools plus a separate JSONPlaceholder demo namespace, making the server feel bloated and unfocused. Many meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_trending) could be consolidated.
The server's name and the get_posts/get_post/get_comments/get_users tools suggest a JSONPlaceholder fake API, but CRUD operations are missing: there's no create, update, or delete for posts, comments, or users, and no todos, albums, or photos. The unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket tools don't address this core domain gap.