spike_list_escalationsList a team's escalation policies — {totalEscalations, escalations:[{_id, name, teams, org}], pagination}. Spike: GET /escalations (team-scoped).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| teamId | No | The 24-char hex team _id to scope this request to (x-team-id). Omit to use the configured default (SPIKE_TEAM_ID). List ids with spike_list_teams. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. Description adds team-scoping and response structure context. No contradictions.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and response shape. No unnecessary words; each sentence adds value.
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?
Despite missing output schema, description includes the response shape inline. Team scoping and default behavior are covered. No gaps for this simple tool.
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 description for teamId. The description adds context about team scoping and default usage, enhancing understanding beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states 'List a team's escalation policies' with specific verb and resource. The response shape is mentioned, and the tool is distinct from sibling spike_get_escalation (singular).
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 parameter description explains how to use teamId, including default behavior and alternative tool for listing teams. However, no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like spike_get_escalation.
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.