team_rolesList the roles a team has defined (e.g. "Frontend", "Designer"), which
members can be assigned via team_assign_role.
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds context about the semantic purpose of the roles, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination limits or whether roles are returned in any particular order; this is acceptable given the simple read-only nature.
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 one concise sentence that states the action, the resource, examples, and a relevant cross-reference to team_assign_role. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.
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 read-only list operation, the description and schema together give enough information to call the tool correctly. It does not describe the return shape, and there is no output schema, but the action is so straightforward that this is a minor gap rather than a correctness issue.
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 documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond indicating that the listed roles are assignable, which is not necessary for correct invocation.
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 lists a team's defined roles, with concrete examples, and indicates these roles are the ones used for assignment via team_assign_role. It is unambiguous about the resource and action, though it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools like team_open_roles.
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 phrase 'roles a team has defined' and the mention that members can be assigned via team_assign_role gives useful context for when to call this tool. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is clear enough for a simple listing operation.
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.