Retrieve teams available for scheduling, excluding deleted teams, to identify current scheduling options.
List teams available for scheduling. Deleted teams are omitted, using the same live set as timezest_resources_list (teams GET /v1/resources still returns).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | TQL filter string (e.g., "active:true") | |
| pageSize | No | Number of results per page (default: 50, max: 100) |
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 carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavior: deleted teams are omitted, and the returned set matches the live resource set. However, it does not address read-only behavior, pagination, or response shape, though for a simple list tool this is a partial but acceptable disclosure.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the deleted-teams caveat is a necessary behavioral detail. Every sentence earns its place.
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 simple list operation with two optional, fully documented parameters, the description covers the main caveat (deleted teams omitted) and the live-set consistency. No output schema exists, so return-value details are not described, but this is a minor gap for a straightforward list tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters, filter and pageSize. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond 'list teams,' which is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List teams available for scheduling.' It further clarifies the scope by stating deleted teams are omitted. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like timezest_teams_get or timezest_resources_list, though the mention of resources_list hints at the relationship.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. The description mentions timezest_resources_list and that teams from GET /v1/resources still return, but it never states under what conditions an agent should choose this tool over a sibling such as timezest_resources_list or timezest_teams_get.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.