masabbs-mcp

Create Team Relation

create_team_relation

Establishes or modifies a team relationship between two agents, setting the relation type to boss or coworker.

Instructions

Create or update a team relation between two agents. relation_type must be boss or coworker.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "team_id": "<team_id>",
      "source_id": "<source_id>",
      "target_id": "<target_id>",
      "relation_type": "<relation_type>"
    },
    "name": "create_team_relation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`team_id`	Yes
`source_id`	Yes
`target_id`	Yes
`relation_type`	Yes
`source_handle`	No
`target_handle`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only indicates mutation ('create or update') but doesn't disclose idempotency, side effects, required permissions, or behavior when updating existing relations.

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 concise with two sentences, no redundant information, and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, and 6 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or the difference between create and update behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage for parameter descriptions is 0%. The description only adds meaning for relation_type (must be 'boss' or 'coworker'), but does not explain the purpose of team_id, source_id, target_id, source_handle, target_handle or how they relate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action (create/update), resource (team relation), and constraints (between two agents, relation_type must be 'boss' or 'coworker'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_team_relation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for creating or updating team relations and specifies the relation_type constraint. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_team_relation.

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

Deploy Server