List colleagues in your organization. Shows name, email, role, and optionally filters by team. Admins see all users; members see users in their own teams.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results (default 20) | |
| team_name | No | Filter by team name (optional — shows only members of that team) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: visibility differs for admins vs. members. It also describes the return fields (name, email, role), which is beyond the schema. However, it does not explicitly confirm that the tool is read-only or mention pagination behavior, though 'List' implies safety.
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, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place. The first sentence states the function, and the second provides essential behavioral context without fluff.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the main needed context: what it returns (name, email, role), the optional filter, and the visibility rule. It does not explain default limit behavior or error scenarios, but those are either in the schema or not critical for a read-only list. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.
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 the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'optionally filters by team' adds no new information beyond the schema's team_name description, and it does not elaborate on the limit parameter beyond what the schema says. The description adds minimal value here.
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 starts with 'List colleagues in your organization', a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_teams or list_project_members. It also enumerates the output fields (name, email, role) and the optional team filter, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 context on scoping (admins see all, members see their own teams) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The team filter is a usage hint, but no alternative tools are referenced, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.
