Create a support team with a name, conversation assignment method, timezone, and optional SLA or business-hours settings to organize and route conversations.
Create Team
Requires the teams:manage permission.
POST /api/v1/teams
Tags: Teams
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | (body) | |
| emoji | No | (body) | |
| timezone | No | (body) | |
| sla_policy_id | No | (body) | |
| business_hours_id | No | (body) | |
| conversation_assignment_type | Yes | (body) | |
| max_auto_assigned_conversations | No | (body) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it contributes only the `teams:manage` permission requirement and the REST endpoint. It says nothing about side effects, whether the team starts empty, validation failures, or what is returned on success.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but much of the content is infrastructure noise ("POST /api/v1/teams", "Tags: Teams") that does not help an agent decide or invoke correctly. The one genuinely useful line, the permission requirement, is buried mid-block.
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 7-parameter mutation with two required fields, an enum, and no output schema or annotations, the description is far too thin. An agent has no way to know what a successful response looks like, what defaults apply to timezone/SLA/business hours, or how assignment behavior is configured.
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 nominally 100%, so the baseline is 3; however, the actual parameter descriptions are empty placeholders like "(body)", so the schema itself adds little. The description does not clarify required fields such as name or the meaning of the "Round robin"/"Manual" conversation_assignment_type enum.
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 says "Create Team," which does identify the verb and resource, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name plus an endpoint line. It gives no indication of what kind of team object is created or how it differs from siblings like update_team or create_agent.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond the permission string, and no mention of alternatives such as update_team or the related assignee tools. An agent must infer the usage context entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.