Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TeamRetro MCP Server

TeamRetro MCP Server

by adepanges
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

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

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": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "add_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYes
nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools

Related Tools