team_postsList a team's public updates ("twits") — the short build-log posts a team
publishes as it works, in the order the server returns them. Use it to catch
up on what a team has been doing, or to check what has already been posted
before writing another update with team_post.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, starting at 1. | |
| team_id | Yes | Id of the team. | |
| page_size | No | Rows per page (max 100). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no mutation warning is needed. The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying that only public updates are returned and that the result order is simply what the server returns, which prevents agents from assuming a guaranteed sort.
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 with no filler. The resource and purpose appear first, the clarifying definition of 'twits' is compact, and the second sentence justifies practical use without repeating schema information.
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 paginated list operation, the description, combined with the fully documented input schema and read-only annotations, gives an agent everything needed to call it correctly. The lack of an output schema is not a gap because the returned resource is clearly identified as a team's list of twit posts.
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 page, page_size, and team_id are already fully described in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline expected when the schema carries the documentation burden.
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 opens with the specific verb 'List' and a concrete resource: a team's public updates ('twits'), which are defined as short build-log posts. This clearly distinguishes team_posts from sibling getters such as team_get or team_members, which concern team metadata rather than the team's update feed.
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 gives explicit use cases: catching up on a team's activity and checking what has already been posted before writing another update. It also points to team_post as the write counterpart, providing an alternative, although it does not enumerate broader when-not-to-use exclusions or other sibling read tools.
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.
Tools are grouped by domain prefix and mostly target a distinct resource, but there are several near-overlapping read clusters — notably whoami/event_roles/event_my_membership (all answer 'what roles at event X'), submission_get/submission_page, team_open_roles/team_seeking_members, and company_employees/company_roster. The descriptions do an exceptional job of steering ('use this, not that'), so misselection is unlikely, but the sheer number of such pairs keeps this from a 5.
The dominant domain_prefix + noun/verb pattern (event_, team_, submission_, company_, article_) is consistent and readable. Deviations: list_api_endpoints/list_capabilities invert the word order (verb-first) versus event_list/submission_list elsewhere, search and whoami carry no domain prefix, account_how_to_sign_in is a phrase, and read verbs vary between get/list/browse/page/preview.
60 tools is far beyond the 25+ threshold, and the surface is purely read-only — the breadth comes from extremely granular views (22 event_* tools) and many singleton catalogs (event_cities, event_types, event_background_images, article_languages, tag_list, tech_list, company_vacancies) plus six meta/informational tools. The domain is genuinely broad and every tool is distinct, so it reads as heavy rather than chaotic, but the count is still excessive.
The set contains zero write tools — no create, update, or delete anywhere — yet the descriptions repeatedly direct callers to absent tools: event_create, event_set_branding, event_add_sponsor, event_submit_registration_answers, invite_join, team_post, team_assign_role, team_remove_member, company_fire_employee, account_export_data, and more. An agent following the descriptions will call nonexistent tools and fail. The read/browse coverage is very thorough, but the complete absence of the write side (which the descriptions themselves treat as existing) is a significant gap.