Add a member to a team. Find the team by name or ID, and the user by name or email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | Role in team: member or lead (default: member) | |
| user | Yes | User name or email to add | |
| team_id | No | Team ID (optional if team_name is provided) | |
| team_name | No | Team name (optional if team_id is provided) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not disclose whether adding is idempotent, what happens if the user is already a team member, whether permissions are required, or what the return value indicates. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence efficiently explains how to identify the team and user without redundancy. Every clause contributes meaning.
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 or annotations, and the description does not mention return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. For a mutation that adds a member, the agent is left unaware of expected outcomes or failure modes. The description is minimal and missing critical context for a complete understanding.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'find the team by name or ID, and the user by name or email' essentially mirrors the schema's parameter descriptions and adds little new semantic value. No extra syntax, constraints, or examples are provided.
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 uses a specific verb and resources: 'Add a member to a team' clearly states the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_team_member' and 'invite_user' by explicitly indicating adding an existing member to an existing team. The additional sentence about finding the team by name or ID and the user by name or email further clarifies the operation.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'invite_user' for new users. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, and the only additional information is about parameter identification rather than usage context. No explicit or implicit usage scenarios are given.
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.
Most tools have distinct resource+action pairs (e.g., create_task vs update_task vs delete_task), but the large number of list/get/search tools creates some potential confusion, especially between get_context, search_entities, and find_documents. Descriptions are detailed and help, but the volume makes navigation less clear.
The majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, delete_, list_, update_, etc.), with clear prefixes like add/remove and link/unlink. Deviations like 'whoami', 'find_documents' vs 'search_entities', and 'setup_organization' prevent a perfect score.
62 tools is far beyond the typical MCP server scope and overwhelms agents with too many choices. Even if each tool is individually useful, the sheer count makes it difficult for an agent to efficiently select the right tool, increasing the likelihood of misselection.
The domain is well covered for projects, tasks, teams, sessions, and notifications, but there are notable gaps: no update_document, no get_task (only list/update/delete), no get_user, no reject_invite, and sprint management lacks update/delete operations. Core CRUD is present for many entities, but not all.
