Retrieve detailed information for a specific team using its team ID. Use this tool to access team details when you need to verify or manage scheduling data.
Get details for a specific team by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| teamId | Yes | Team ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. 'Get details' clearly indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation, which covers the main safety concern. However, it does not disclose error behavior for an invalid or missing team ID, permission requirements, or whether the response includes the full team object or a subset of fields.
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, compact sentence containing only essential information: the action, the resource, and the identifier. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter, read-only getter with no output schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, but it omits details about the expected return structure (what 'details' means) and potential error conditions. These gaps are minor given the operation's low complexity.
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 schema already defines teamId as a required string with the description 'Team ID', giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond echoing 'by ID', such as where to find the ID, format expectations, or relation to the ID returned by timezest_teams_list. Per baseline for high schema coverage, this is adequate.
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 states a clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('team'), and the distinguishing scope ('by ID'). It differentiates from the sibling timezest_teams_list, which presumably fetches all teams, by targeting a single team. The wording is unambiguous and actionable.
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 phrase 'by ID' implies this tool is for fetching one team when the ID is already known, while to enumerate teams the agent would use timezest_teams_list. However, this is only implied rather than explicitly stated; there is no direct guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or how to obtain a team ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.