list_team_membersList a bounded roster for the authenticated MultiLocale organization. Returns only each member's display name and role. Email addresses, member IDs, role IDs, phone, country, and signup device details are excluded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| members | Yes | ||
| memberCount | Yes | ||
| membersTruncated | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: the result is 'bounded', only display name and role are returned, and specific fields are excluded. This goes beyond what annotations provide.
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 concise sentences deliver the core purpose, scope, and exclusions without redundancy. The key behavior is front-loaded, and every phrase adds value.
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 parameterless list tool with an output schema and safety-related annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what will be returned and what will not, which is all that is needed to invoke it correctly.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on return scope rather than parameters.
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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('bounded roster for the authenticated MultiLocale organization'), and the exact data included. It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools focused on phrases, projects, locales, and translations.
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?
The description provides clear context that this is for listing members of the authenticated MultiLocale organization. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool overlaps with team member listing, so the usage context is sufficiently clear.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but several overlap: get_project and show_project_overview both fetch a project by id/name, and list_phrases, search_phrases, and export_locale_dictionary all return phrase collections in similar ways. Descriptions help clarify edge cases, but an agent could plausibly select the wrong tool in several scenarios.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: add_, delete_, get_, list_, search_, find_, update_, export_, share_, show_. Minor differences like get_project vs show_project_overview do not break the overall naming convention.
17 tools is slightly above the ideal range but still reasonable for a localization server covering projects, locales, phrases, translation searches, sharing, and team roster. Each tool represents a real operation, even if a few could be consolidated.
The surface covers core project and phrase lifecycles well: create/read/update for projects and phrases, delete for phrases, locale updates, translation generation, search/export, and missing-translation analysis. Minor gaps exist, such as no delete_project, no explicit unshare_phrase operation, and no dedicated remove_locale tool.