Skip to main content
Glama
adepanges

TeamRetro MCP Server

update_team

Modify team details such as name and tags using a unique team ID for accurate updates within the TeamRetro MCP Server's retrospective management system.

Instructions

Update an existing team

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesstring
tagsNostring[]
teamIdYesstring

Implementation Reference

  • The complete definition of the 'update_team' tool, including its Zod schema for input validation (team ID, optional name and tags), description, and handler function that calls the teamsService to perform the update.
    update_team: {
      schema: teamSchema.pick({
        id: true,
        name: true,
        tags: true
      }),
      description: "Update an existing team's details, such as its name and associated tags, by providing the team's ID",
      handler: async (args: {
        id: string;
        name?: string;
        tags?: string[];
      }) => {
        const { id, ...updateData } = args;
        return createToolResponse(teamsService.updateTeam(id, updateData));
      },
    },
  • src/tools.ts:13-22 (registration)
    Registration of teamTools (which includes update_team) by spreading into the main tools object used to generate toolSchema and toolHandlers.
    const tools = {
      ...userTools,
      ...teamTools,
      ...teamMembersTools,
      ...actionTools,
      ...retrospectiveTools,
      ...agreementTools,
      ...healthModelTools,
      ...healthCheckTools,
    };
  • The helper service method 'updateTeam' invoked by the tool handler, which performs a PATCH request to the TeamRetro API to update the team.
    /**
     * Update an existing team
     * @param teamId The ID of the team to update
     * @param data Team data to update
     * @returns Updated team object
     * @throws ErrorMCP if team not found or validation fails
     */
    async updateTeam(
      teamId: string,
      data: Partial<Pick<Team, "name" | "tags" | "members">>
    ): Promise<SingleApiResponse<Team>> {
      return this.patch<SingleApiResponse<Team>>(`/v1/teams/${teamId}`, data);
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, auth needs), response format, and usage context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate safely and effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (teamId, name, tags) with descriptions and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Update an existing team' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (team), distinguishing it from siblings like create_team or delete_team. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of the team can be updated (e.g., name, tags), which would make it more specific.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_team or update_user. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing teamId) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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