list_teamsLists the teams of the account, the administrative team or the technical one for instance, each with its slug (what assign_conversation and the other team tools take) and who is in it. A team is a way of handing a thread to several people at once; it opens no queue, so a member only ever sees the threads of the queues they work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden and does add real behavioral context: a team opens no queue and members only see threads of queues they work. That visibility/membership semantics is valuable and non-obvious. It stops short of saying the call is read-only and cheap, but 'Lists' implies it.
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, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (the slug is what other team tools take) is packed into the first sentence. The second sentence explains semantics rather than padding.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the return fields (slug, membership). Combined with the team-vs-queue explanation, an agent has everything needed to call this and to use its results.
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, so the baseline is 4; nothing is left undocumented. The description usefully previews what each entry carries (slug and members) rather than wasting space on parameter detail.
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 ('Lists the teams of the account') and adds concrete examples of team kinds (administrative, technical). It also defines what a team is, which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_people or list_mailboxes without needing to open the schema.
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?
Explicitly tells the agent that the returned slug is what assign_conversation and other team tools accept, which is a clear downstream-use cue. It does not state when not to use it or name a direct alternative, so it falls short of full routing guidance.
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.