This is a duplicate of the actual entry deprecating this in favor of the original.
get_teamRead one team and its members.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"team_id": "<team_id>"
},
"name": "get_team"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team_id | Yes | The team's id, from list_teams. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond annotations — that members are returned alongside the team — but says nothing about member payload shape or whether the member list is truncated.
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 seven-word sentence with the resource and included sub-resource front-loaded; nothing is redundant. It is perhaps too compressed to be maximally useful, but no sentence is wasted.
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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and only notes that members are included, without saying what fields a team has or how members are represented. For a simple single-parameter read this is adequate but leaves real gaps.
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 is a single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already states it comes from list_teams. The description adds no syntax, format, or example detail beyond that, so the schema does the work and baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Read one team and its members"), and the singular "one team" implicitly distinguishes it from list_teams. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is left partly to inference.
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 "one team" implies the single-record use case versus list_teams, and the schema points to list_teams as the id source, but the description never says when to choose this tool over list_teams or list_members. Usage is only implied.
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.