Skip to main content
Glama

Sliq

by com.getsliq
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List Team Shared Agents

list_team_shared_agents
Read-only

Team-shared agent visibility: teammates' agents plus the agents shared with and by the caller.

Returns {'teammates_agents': {owner_email: [{'id', 'title', 'status', 'template_id'}, ...], ...}, 'shared_with_me': [{'share_id', 'access_kind', 'owner_email', 'owner_display_name', 'agent': {'id', 'title', 'status'}, 'created_at'}, ...], 'shared_by_me': [{'id', 'agent_id', 'owner_email', 'owner_display_name', 'shared_with_email', 'shared_with_display_name', 'created_at'}, ...]}. teammates_agents is grouped by teammate email and gated on allow_team_actions — only teammates who let you act on their behalf appear, so every listed agent is openable. shared_with_me are agents others shared with you; shared_by_me are your own agents you've shared, one row per recipient. A solo user with no shares gets an empty grouping and empty lists.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
on_behalf_ofNoAn agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that client's account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / on_behalf_of
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "An agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that client's account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: teammates_agents is gated on allow_team_actions so only actionable agents appear, and solo users with no shares get empty groupings and empty lists.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The length is largely justified because there is no output schema, so the detailed return shape earns its place. It is front-loaded with the purpose before the nested structure, though the parenthetical field lists are somewhat heavy.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of return values and does so thoroughly, documenting all three buckets, their nesting, and the allow_team_actions gating plus the empty-result edge case.

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 coverage is 100% and the single on_behalf_of parameter is fully documented in the schema (agency client email, omit for own account). The description adds nothing about it, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description precisely defines the resource: teammates' agents plus agents shared with and by the caller, broken into three named buckets. That is specific enough to tell it apart from list_agents in practice, though it never explicitly names or contrasts with that sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the content description (call it to see team-shared agent visibility), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to an alternative sibling like list_agents. An agent must infer the trigger conditions.

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

All Sliq toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources