Skip to main content
Glama
piekstra

Slack MCP Server

by piekstra

create_channel

Create new Slack channels for team communication by specifying a name and privacy setting to organize workspace discussions.

Instructions

Create a new Slack channel.

Args: name: Name for the new channel is_private: Whether the channel should be private

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
is_privateNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The MCP tool handler for 'create_channel', decorated with @mcp.tool(). It instantiates SlackClient and delegates to its create_channel method, returning JSON response.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def create_channel(name: str, is_private: bool = False) -> str:
        """
        Create a new Slack channel.
    
        Args:
            name: Name for the new channel
            is_private: Whether the channel should be private
        """
        try:
            client = SlackClient()
            result = await client.create_channel(name, is_private)
            return json.dumps(result, indent=2)
        except Exception as e:
            return json.dumps({"error": str(e)}, indent=2)
  • SlackClient helper method that performs the actual Slack API call to create a channel using conversations.create endpoint.
    async def create_channel(self, name: str, is_private: bool = False) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """Create a new channel."""
        data = {"name": name, "is_private": is_private}
        return await self._make_request("POST", "conversations.create", json_data=data)
  • The @mcp.tool() decorator registers the create_channel function as an MCP tool.
    @mcp.tool()
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool creates a channel but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what permissions are required, whether creation is reversible (e.g., via archive_channel), rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for a mutation operation.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first followed by parameter details. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the parameter explanations are brief and could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, but it borders on under-specification.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but misses important context like permissions, error handling, and relationships with sibling tools. For a mutation tool with no annotations, more behavioral disclosure is needed to be fully helpful.

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?

The description adds basic semantics for both parameters (name and is_private) beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'name' is for the new channel and 'is_private' determines privacy, providing essential context. However, it doesn't cover constraints (e.g., name length, allowed characters) or default behavior for is_private, leaving gaps.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new Slack channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from other channel-related tools like archive_channel or list_channels by specifying it's for creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible sibling tools beyond the obvious channel context.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing appropriate permissions), when not to use it (e.g., if a channel already exists), or how it relates to sibling tools like invite_to_channel (which might be needed after creation). Usage is implied from the name but not explicitly stated.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/piekstra/slack-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server