Done Bear MCP

List Teams

team_list

Read-only

List active (non-archived) teams in the workspace. Returns up to limit teams; hasMore is true when more matched than were returned.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max results; the response's `hasMore` reports truncation
`context`	Yes	Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): "Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization."
`workspace`	No	Workspace id, slug, or name

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	Yes
`teams`	Yes
`total`	Yes
`hasMore`	Yes	True when more results matched than were returned

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish a read-only safe operation, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds behavioral context beyond annotations: only active teams are returned and `hasMore` signals results were truncated, helping the agent interpret the response and decide whether more data exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler; purpose is front-loaded and the pagination detail is secondary. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list tool, the description, combined with the output schema and annotations, covers what is listed, the workspace scope, and truncation behavior. The only minor gap—how to fetch the remaining teams when `hasMore` is true—is not necessary for selection and basic invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the `limit` truncation behavior that is already in the schema and does not address the required `context` parameter or add new parameter-level meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('List ... teams') and adds a clear scope ('active (non-archived) ... in the workspace'), which distinguishes it from the many other *_list sibling tools. It also signals the pagination contract (limit/hasMore), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly frames when the tool applies: listing active, non-archived teams within the workspace, which implies it is not for archived teams. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no team-listing sibling exists and the resource scope is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Done Bear MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are cleanly separated by resource and action, and each family (checklist, comment, label, project, task) follows the same shape. The main blur is between search and task_list's optional search filter, and convenience tools like checklist_done overlap with checklist_edit.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant convention is snake_case noun_verb (task_add, checklist_list, comment_remove), with consistent verb families across resources. A few outliers like get_context, search, and guide break the pattern, but overall the naming is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, this is a heavy surface for a task-management server and exceeds the 25-tool threshold. Several tools are convenience variants (task_done vs task_bulk_done, checklist_done vs checklist_edit) that could be consolidated or represented as parameters.

Completeness4/5

The core task lifecycle is well covered: create, show, edit, complete, reopen, archive, list, assign, and bulk operations, with full checklist and comment CRUD. Notable gaps are label deletion/renaming, project deletion, and search being limited to tasks, but these are minor for the apparent product scope.

Resources

Need Help?