ModelsLab Agent Control Plane

Agent Team Management

agent-teams

Manage teams for the authenticated user.
Actions: list (view team members and pending invites), create (invite by email),
get (view a team member), update (modify member role/permissions),
delete (remove member), resend-invite, accept-invite.
All actions require authentication.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "agent-teams"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`role`	No	Member role (for update)
`email`	No	Email address to invite (required for create)
`action`	Yes	The teams action: list, create, get, update, delete, resend-invite, accept-invite
`invite_id`	No	Invite UUID (required for accept-invite)
`member_id`	No	Team member ID (required for get, update, delete, resend-invite)
`permissions`	No	Permissions array (for update)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 26, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / invite_status

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Invite status: pending, accepted (for update)",
-  "type": "string"
-}

First observedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only set openWorldHint=true, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It usefully states that all actions require authentication, but it never warns that create/update/delete/resend-invite are mutating, irreversible, or that invites trigger emails — context an agent needs before calling these actions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A short, front-loaded description with an action list that is easy to scan. Minor inconsistency: resend-invite and accept-invite lack the explanatory parentheticals the other actions have, and the action list partly duplicates the schema's action enum.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description should describe return shape, yet it says nothing about what list vs get vs create return. For a seven-action tool, this leaves real gaps, though the auth note and action glosses cover the essentials for selection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 parentheticals do map actions to parameters (create→email, accept-invite→invite_id, etc.), but this largely repeats what the schema already says in each property description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Manage teams for the authenticated user') and enumerates all seven actions with short glosses. The resource is clearly distinct from every sibling (api-keys, auth, billing, models, profile, subscriptions, tokens, usage, wallet).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The action list with parentheticals effectively tells the agent which action to pick for which intent (invite by email, modify role, remove member, accept invite). It gives no exclusions or alternatives, but for a single multi-action tool with no overlapping siblings that is acceptable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ModelsLab Agent Control Plane tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.