Create a new team within an npm organization by specifying the team as '@scope:team'. Optionally add a description to define the team's purpose.
Create a team inside an organization. Team is passed as '@scope:team'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team | Yes | Team in the form '@scope:team' | |
| description | No | Optional team description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention permissions, side effects, failure modes, or what happens on duplicate teams. The description merely restates the core action without exceeding annotation coverage.
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 concise sentence that communicates the essential purpose and format. It is appropriately short, though it could slightly benefit from a note about the required format being part of the parameter rather than the tool-level description.
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?
With no output schema, the description does not explain what a successful creation returns, and no mention of error conditions or permissions. Given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, it is adequate but has clear gaps for an agent to call it with full confidence.
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 documents both parameters completely (team with format, description as optional). The description's mention of '@scope:team' is redundant with the schema description. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3 with no additional semantic value added.
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 clearly states the action ('Create a team inside an organization') with a specific verb and resource. It also includes the exact format '@scope:team', which distinguishes it from related team management tools like npm_team_delete or npm_team_members.
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, prerequisites, or context such as required authentication or organization membership. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.