get_team_escalation_policyRead 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 read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the not-found outcome when no policy is active and the consequent fallback that such a level reaches every member at once — a genuinely non-obvious behavior.
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 dense sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the edge-case behavior following. Phrasing like 'how a level targeting the team pages its members' is slightly roundabout but every clause carries information.
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?
For a one-parameter read with no output schema, the description conveys purpose, the shape of the returned concept, and error/fallback semantics. It could note pagination or exact return fields, but the important calling behavior is covered.
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?
Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it fully ('The team's id, from list_teams'), so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no further detail about the identifier beyond what the schema text provides.
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 names a specific verb ('Read') and a scoped resource ('a team's active escalation policy') and elaborates on the payload ('how a level targeting the team pages its members'). The word 'active' implicitly sets it apart from the revision-oriented siblings, though it never explicitly names them.
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 only implied: it is clearly a lookup of the currently active policy, and 'Not found when no policy is active' gives a useful condition, but it never tells the agent when to prefer get_team_escalation_policy_revision or list_team_escalation_policy_revisions instead.
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.