This is a duplicate of the actual entry deprecating this in favor of the original.
Read a team's active escalation policy: how a level targeting the team pages its members, with warnings for targets who have left. Not found when no policy is active; such a level then reaches every member at once.
| 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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the not-found case ("Not found when no policy is active") and the fallback semantics that apply in that case, which an agent needs to interpret an empty result correctly.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and edge-case behavior second. The final clause ("such a level then reaches every member at once") is compressed to the point of mild ambiguity, which keeps it just short of ideal.
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 explaining what is returned, and it does sketch the returned policy's meaning plus the missing-policy case. For a single-parameter read tool this is close to complete, though the actual shape of the returned policy is only described narratively.
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 only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already documents team_id including its source (list_teams). The description adds no additional syntax or format meaning, so the baseline of 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 a team's active escalation policy") and goes further by explaining what the resource actually means: how a level targeting the team pages its members. The word "active" implicitly separates it from get_team_escalation_policy_revision, though that sibling is never named explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the attribute "active" rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the current-state read versus the revision reader. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to sibling tools such as get_team or list_team_escalation_policy_revisions.
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.