Create a team owned by the caller. Handle is immutable post-creation.
Fails with handle_not_claimed if the caller still holds a
provisional user handle. Team handles share the handles
namespace with user handles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | Handle for the new team, drawn from the shared handle namespace. Immutable after creation. |
| 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?
Discloses handle immutability and namespace sharing, and failure condition. However, with no behavioral hints in annotations (all false), description could elaborate more on side effects or permissions required. It adds some value beyond annotations but is not exhaustive.
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 concise sentences that front-load the primary action and add key constraints. No wasted words.
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 single-parameter creation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential failure condition and handle behavior. It feels complete for the tool's complexity, though it could briefly mention what the response contains (but output schema likely covers that).
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 coverage is 100% with a detailed description of the handle parameter. The description repeats the immutability and namespace info already present in the schema, adding no new semantic information, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 it creates a team owned by the caller, with specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like delete_team or list_teams.
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?
Provides failure condition (handle_not_claimed if provisional handle held) and notes handle namespace sharing, offering context for when to use. Lacks explicit alternatives but given uniqueness of the tool, guidance is clear.
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.
