Skip to main content
Glama
adepanges

TeamRetro MCP Server

add_user

Add or update a user by providing their email and optional name on the TeamRetro MCP Server, facilitating user management for retrospective sessions.

Instructions

Add or update a user by email

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYes
nameNo

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the MCP 'add_user' tool. It extracts email, name, and emailAddress from args and calls usersService.addUser, wrapping the result with createToolResponse.
    handler: async (args: {
      email: string;
      name: string | null;
      emailAddress: string;
    }) =>
      createToolResponse(
        usersService.addUser(args.email, {
          name: args.name,
          emailAddress: args.emailAddress,
        })
      ),
  • Zod input schema for the 'add_user' tool defining required email and optional name. Note: handler expects additional emailAddress not in schema.
    schema: z.object({
      email: emailSchema,
      name: nameSchema.optional(),
    }),
  • src/tools.ts:13-22 (registration)
    Registration of userTools (which includes 'add_user') into the main tools object, which is then used to generate toolSchema and toolHandlers for MCP.
    const tools = {
      ...userTools,
      ...teamTools,
      ...teamMembersTools,
      ...actionTools,
      ...retrospectiveTools,
      ...agreementTools,
      ...healthModelTools,
      ...healthCheckTools,
    };
  • The supporting usersService.addUser method that performs a PUT request to `/v1/users/{email}` with the user data to add or update the user.
    async addUser(
      email: string,
      userData: { name: string | null; emailAddress: string }
    ): Promise<SingleApiResponse<User>> {
      return this.put<SingleApiResponse<User>>(`/v1/users/${email}`, {
        body: userData,
      });
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this requires admin permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or the response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error cases, return values, and differentiation from siblings, making it insufficient for reliable agent use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds minimal parameter context. It mentions 'by email' which hints at the 'email' parameter but doesn't explain the 'name' parameter or their semantics (e.g., is name optional for updates?). This leaves significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Add or update') and target resource ('a user by email'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_user' (which doesn't exist) or 'update_user' (which does exist), missing explicit sibling distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 like 'update_user' or 'delete_user'. The description implies it can handle both addition and update, but doesn't specify scenarios or prerequisites for choosing it over other user management tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/adepanges/teamretro-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server