add_team_memberPuts a person of the account in a team, whatever their rank. It opens no queue: they see the threads handed to the team only on the queues they already work, which add_queue_operator decides. A deactivated account is refused.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team | Yes | The slug of the team, as list_teams gives it. | |
| person | Yes | The email address the person signs in with, which is not the same thing as the mailbox: it is how the account knows them. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the key non-obvious side effect (no queue is created, threads appear only on queues the person already works), the precondition that deactivated accounts are refused, and that rank is irrelevant. It omits idempotency (what happens if the person is already a member), required permissions, and error behavior.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the behavioral consequence and the precondition. Every sentence carries information; only the slightly convoluted phrasing of the queue sentence costs it a point.
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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the visibility side effect, and the refusal condition — enough for an agent to call it correctly. It could still say what a successful call returns or how duplicates are handled, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (team slug, sign-in email) and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only the loose notion of "a person of the account," which marginally reinforces that person is an account identity rather than a mailbox, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.
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 ("Puts a person of the account in a team") plus a scope qualifier ("whatever their rank") that rules out permission-based refusals. It also separates the tool from the adjacent concern by noting that queue membership is decided elsewhere. It stops short of naming remove_team_member as the inverse operation, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.
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?
"It opens no queue... which add_queue_operator decides" effectively routes the agent: use this tool for team membership, add_queue_operator for queue visibility. "A deactivated account is refused" gives a precondition that selects against use. No explicit "do not use when" statement or named inverse tool, so it falls short of a 5.
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.