Skip to main content
Glama

pylon_create_team

Create a new team in Pylon customer support platform by specifying team name and adding user IDs for collaboration.

Instructions

Create a new team

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoTeam name
user_idsNoUser IDs to add to the team

Implementation Reference

  • The MCP tool handler function for 'pylon_create_team'. It calls PylonClient.createTeam(params) and returns the result as formatted text content.
    async (params) => {
    	const result = await client.createTeam(params);
    	return {
    		content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result.data, null, 2) }],
    	};
    },
  • Zod input schema for the 'pylon_create_team' tool defining optional name and user_ids parameters.
    {
    	name: z.string().optional().describe('Team name'),
    	user_ids: z
    		.array(z.string())
    		.optional()
    		.describe('User IDs to add to the team'),
    },
  • src/index.ts:614-630 (registration)
    Registration of the 'pylon_create_team' MCP tool using server.tool(), including description, schema, and handler.
    server.tool(
    	'pylon_create_team',
    	'Create a new team',
    	{
    		name: z.string().optional().describe('Team name'),
    		user_ids: z
    			.array(z.string())
    			.optional()
    			.describe('User IDs to add to the team'),
    	},
    	async (params) => {
    		const result = await client.createTeam(params);
    		return {
    			content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result.data, null, 2) }],
    		};
    	},
    );
  • PylonClient.createTeam method: sends POST request to '/teams' endpoint with the provided data to create a new team.
    async createTeam(data: {
    	name?: string;
    	user_ids?: string[];
    }): Promise<SingleResponse<Team>> {
    	return this.request<SingleResponse<Team>>('POST', '/teams', data);
    }
  • TypeScript interface defining the structure of a Team object returned by the Pylon API.
    export interface Team {
    	id: string;
    	name: string;
    	users: { email: string; id: string }[];
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'Create' implies a write operation, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if team names must be unique, what happens if user_ids are invalid, or if there are rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action. There's zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial details like expected return values, error conditions, or system-specific constraints (e.g., team naming rules). For a mutation operation, this leaves the agent under-informed about how to use it effectively.

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 no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With schema description coverage at 100%, the schema already documents 'name' and 'user_ids' adequately. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't compensate or add extra context about parameter usage.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('a new team'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pylon_create_account' or 'pylon_create_contact' beyond the resource type, missing an opportunity to specify what makes a team distinct in this system.

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. With siblings like 'pylon_get_team' and 'pylon_list_teams' available, there's no indication of prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions) or when creation is appropriate versus retrieval, leaving the agent to guess based on context.

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/JustinBeckwith/pylon-mcp'

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