Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Gitea: List team members

gitea_list_team_members
Read-only

Retrieves all members of a Gitea team by site and team ID, with pagination options, to inspect team access and membership.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] List all members of a team.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "team_id": "<team_id>"
    },
    "name": "gitea_list_team_members"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
siteYes
limitNo
team_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0
  2. Removedv3.13.1
  3. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention that results are paginated despite "all members" being claimed, nor what happens for invalid or inaccessible team ids. "All" combined with page/limit defaults is mildly misleading.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded, so it is compact, but the unexplained "[UNIFIED]" tag consumes part of that brevity without earning its place.

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 four-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin: pagination behavior, the site selector, and team_id sourcing are all left undocumented.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for four parameters, and the description explains none of them. It never clarifies what "site" means (the unified multi-instance selector), that team_id comes from a team-listing call, or that page and limit control pagination.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: listing the members of a team. An agent can tell it apart from team-level siblings such as gitea_list_org_teams, but the "[UNIFIED]" prefix is unexplained and adds no discriminating information.

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 on when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing a team id from a team-listing call). Usage is only implied by the verb "List".

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