Retrieve all teams from your Pylon account with optional pagination and result limits.
List all teams in Pylon.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Results limit (1-100, default 50) | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Results limit"New value: +"Results limit (1-100, default 50)"Input schema / properties / limit / maximumPrevious value: -1000New value: +100v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or that the result is a list. The input schema hints at pagination, but the description does not clarify.
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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It could benefit from slightly more detail, but it is efficient and contains no fluff.
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 list operation with pagination and no output schema, the description should mention pagination behavior or what the response contains. It does not, leaving agents underinformed about the tool's full behavior.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (limit and cursor), providing clear constraints. The description adds no additional insight beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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?
The description 'List all teams in Pylon' clearly states the verb (list), resource (teams), and scope (all). It distinguishes from sibling list tools by resource name, but lacks specificity about pagination or filtering.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pylon_get_team or pylon_search_accounts. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.