retro.teams.listReturns the list of teams the user belongs to. boards_count is the total number of boards in a team, finished and unfinished alike — use retro.boards.list to tell them apart.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations already mark the tool as read-only, the description adds context about the boards_count field's meaning, helping interpret the output. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes a helpful clarification without redundancy.
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 simple no-parameter list tool, the description covers the primary purpose, key field semantics, and points to a sibling for finer-grained board counts, making it complete.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exists.
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 clearly states the tool returns the list of teams the user belongs to, using a specific verb-resource combination. It also distinguishes itself from retro.boards.list by clarifying the boards_count field meaning.
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 explicitly points to retro.boards.list as an alternative when needing to differentiate finished and unfinished boards, providing guidance on when to use this tool vs the sibling.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with overlapping tools like retro.actions.list and retro.board.actions.list explicitly differentiated in descriptions. The naming hierarchy (domain.resource.subresource.verb) helps keep properties separate.
Tools follow a consistent dot-separated resource-verb pattern, with singular/plural usage following standard collection vs. single-resource conventions (e.g., games.list vs. game.get). All verbs are lowercase with underscores, making the surface predictable.
With 29 tools spanning two distinct domains (poker planning and retrospectives), the surface feels heavy and may overwhelm users. The calibration suggests 25+ is excessive, and splitting into separate servers could improve focus.
The tool set covers most management tasks for both poker games and retrospectives, but lacks a core operation for adding messages/cards to a board, which is essential for a retro tool. Also, no board creation or deletion tools, leaving some lifecycle operations incomplete.