list-agentsList or search Chatway teammates by name or email. Use this to obtain an unambiguous agent UUID before assigning conversations. Not needed when assign-conversation can match the agent directly by name or email with agent_query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum agents to return, from 1 to 100. | |
| query | No | Optional name or email filter (e.g. "Nibir"). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agents | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Maximum agents to return."New value: +"Maximum agents to return, from 1 to 100."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "agents": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "email": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Agent UUID.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "online_status": {
+ "description": "Current online status of the agent.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "description": "Account status of the agent.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the lookup-resolution purpose that explains why this read exists. Minor gap: pagination/truncation behavior from the limit default isn't described, but that is largely covered by the schema.
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 sentences, no filler; the purpose and the prerequisite for assignment are front-loaded, then the exclusion is stated. Every clause earns 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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, annotations cover the safety profile, both params are documented, and the description supplies the one thing structured data can't: why and when to call this rather than the sibling. Nothing material is missing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both limit and query are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only restates that matching is by name or email, which is already in the query parameter description, so 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 ('List or search Chatway teammates by name or email') with the exact matching fields named. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling assign-conversation, so an agent can tell the two apart without inspecting schemas.
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?
Given the explicit 'Use this to obtain an unambiguous agent UUID before assigning conversations' plus a clear when-not clause mentioning the assign-conversation agent_query alternative, an agent knows exactly when to route here versus assigning directly by name.
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.