Retrieve all teams accessible to the current user for managing messages and channels.
List all teams for the current user
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_teams"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that results are scoped to the current user, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, output format, or potential authorization requirements, which would strengthen transparency.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and immediately parsable.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no input schema, no output schema), the description sufficiently captures its core purpose. It could optionally mention whether 'all teams' includes archived or hidden teams, but this is not essential for basic usage.
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?
The tool accepts zero parameters and the schema is fully comprehensive (100% coverage). Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 since there is no parameter meaning to add beyond the empty 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?
The description uses the specific verb 'list' with the resource 'teams' and clarifies scope 'for the current user', differentiating it from sibling tools like get_team (single team) and get_teams_unread (teams with unread counts). This is clear and 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 implies this is the default action to enumerate the current user's teams, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like get_teams_unread or get_team. It offers no exclusions or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.