charliehr_list_team_member_notesThe custom notes (label and content) stored on one team member (the content of a note labelled as a National Insurance number, and NI-number-looking text, is redacted). GET /team_members/{id}/notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, from 1 (default 1). Pass the previous reply's next_page. | |
| per_page | No | Results per page, 1-25 (default 25). | |
| team_member_id | Yes | Charlie team member id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the redaction rule for National Insurance numbers and NI-looking text, which the agent would otherwise have no way to anticipate. It does not describe pagination, but that is covered by the schema.
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?
One compact sentence plus the endpoint, with the return payload (label and content) front-loaded ahead of the redaction caveat. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical redaction clause makes the sentence slightly dense.
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 read-only paginated list with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, payload shape, and the one surprising behavior (redaction). Return structure details are partially covered by naming label/content; nothing critical is missing.
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, per_page, and team_member_id are already documented. The description only reinforces the single-team-member targeting and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema; baseline 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?
States a specific verb (list) and resource (custom notes with label and content) scoped to one team member, plus the concrete endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from create_team_member_note and list_team_member_note_types, which concern writing notes and fetching note types respectively.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and by the single-team-member scope, but the description never says when to use this versus list_team_member_note_types or when notes should be read at all. No explicit exclusions or alternatives 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.