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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that, including the organization scope, bounded nature of the roster, and the precise fields suppressed from the response.
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 with no filler; the main action and scope are front-loaded, and the exclusion list adds useful detail without bloating the definition. Every sentence 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?
For a zero-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema and annotations already covering safety and idempotency, the description is complete. It tells the agent what will be returned, what is excluded, and the organizational scope, leaving no critical gap.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The description still reinforces the implicit operation scope by stating it acts on the authenticated organization's team roster.
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 a bounded roster' for team members. It clarifies exactly what is returned (display name and role) and what is excluded (emails, IDs, phone, country, signup device), making the tool's scope unmistakable.
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 clearly frames the tool as a bounded roster listing for the authenticated organization, which conveys when it is appropriate. It also signals what this tool is not for by listing excluded fields, though it does not name an alternative tool for richer member data.
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.
The tool set separates resources (project, phrase, locale, team member) with clear action prefixes. Some read tools overlap: get_project vs show_project_overview, and list_phrases vs search_phrases, but descriptions clarify exact scope and parameters. No two tools appear to perform the same operation.
All 17 tools follow a consistent lowercase_snake_case verb_noun pattern, e.g. add_project, list_phrases, update_phrase, export_locale_dictionary. There are no mixed conventions, vague verbs, or inconsistent abbreviation styles. This is exemplary.
At 17 tools, the set is on the heavy side for a localization server and above the typical 3-15 well-scoped range. While each tool has a distinct purpose, show_project_overview and the find_* diagnostics add surface area and could be trimmed without losing core functionality. Still, the count is not excessive for the broad domain.
Phrases have full CRUD plus search/share, and projects have create/read/update/list, but delete_project is absent, leaving an obvious lifecycle gap. Team member operations are list-only, and locale removal is only possible indirectly via update_project. Core translation workflows work, but these gaps will block some common tasks.