affset MCP server

List team members

list_team

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve team member details including email, role, and key expiry to manage access. Requires owner or manager permissions and never exposes API tokens.

Instructions

List team members (user API keys) in the current namespace: email, role, manager, created/expiry. Never returns API tokens. Requires owner/manager (or a scoped manager role).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_team"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`role`	No	Optional role filter, e.g. owner, manager, publisher, advertiser, publisher_manager, advertiser_manager.
`include_expired`	No	Include members whose expires_at is in the past. Default false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it never returns API tokens and requires specific permissions. This goes beyond annotations to disclose behavioral traits.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first communicates purpose and output, second clarifies exclusions and permissions. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity, lack of output schema is compensated by listing returned fields. Annotations cover safety and idempotency. The description is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (role filter and include_expired). The description does not add additional meaning to these parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Clearly states the tool lists team members with specific fields (email, role, manager, created/expiry) and explicitly distinguishes itself by noting it never returns API tokens. The verb 'list' and resource 'team members' are unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Specifies required role (owner/manager or scoped manager) for usage, providing clear context on who can invoke it. Does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct to alternatives, but given no sibling tool serves the same purpose, this is adequate.

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