List all teams for this project with member and conversation counts
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_teams"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | No | Target project ID | |
| project_slug | No | Target project slug (helpdesk slug) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "List" implies a read-only operation and the mention of member/conversation counts discloses that aggregated data is joined in, but there is nothing about pagination, result caps, or whether an empty project returns an empty array.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope and the returned counts both appear before any reader would stop scanning.
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 zero-required-parameter list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description conveys both what is listed and the shape of the aggregates returned. The remaining gap is pagination/size expectations, which matters less for a per-project team list.
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 coverage is 100%, with both project_id and project_slug documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's "for this project" hints at the targeting parameters but adds no detail on the id-vs-slug choice or on behavior when neither is supplied (both are optional).
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 all teams"), scopes it to a project, and adds that member and conversation counts are included, which tells the agent what the payload looks like. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_team, so an agent must infer list-vs-single.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative get_team for fetching a single team. The 'for this project' phrase implies the context but nothing steers selection or states prerequisites.
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.