Create a new Slack channel by providing a name and optional privacy setting. Use this to set up public or private channels for team communication.
Create a new Slack channel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Channel name (lowercase, no spaces, use hyphens) | |
| is_private | No | Create as private channel |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that the tool creates a channel, but does not mention workspace-wide visibility, required permissions, name uniqueness, or what happens on duplicate creation. This is minimal mutation context with no added behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no filler or redundancy that detracts from clarity. It is appropriately brief for a simple creation tool and front-loads the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description only states the action. An agent would benefit from knowing what the tool returns, whether permission is required, or how it behaves if the channel already exists. The schema covers parameters but not the broader behavioral context needed for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters: name and is_private. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable per baseline since the schema handles the semantics fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the verb and resource: create a Slack channel. It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools like create_canvas or create_channel_canvas. However, it does not add any scope or distinguishing detail beyond restating the resource in the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like join_channel, archive_channel, or invite_to_channel. The intended usage is only implied by the name and description, with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when a different tool should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.