Configure permissions for a Slack List by assigning read, write, or owner access to specific users and groups.
Set access rules for a Slack List (grant read/write/owner to users or groups).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list_id | Yes | List ID | |
| user_ids | No | List of user IDs to grant access to | |
| group_ids | No | List of group IDs to grant access to | |
| access_level | Yes | Access level: 'read', 'write', or 'owner' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'grant read/write/owner', but does not clarify whether this replaces existing access rules or appends to them, whether it is idempotent, or what permissions the caller needs. For a mutation tool, this is a meaningful gap.
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, well-formed sentence with no filler or redundant restatement. It front-loads the action and resource, then specifies the key parameters in a compact parenthetical.
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?
The description does not explain whether providing neither user_ids nor group_ids is valid, whether the operation overwrites existing access, or what the response indicates. Given the required access_level without required target lists, the agent could invoke the tool in a way that is undefined from the description alone.
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 itself already documents list_id, user_ids, group_ids, and access_level. The description adds the conceptual mapping that access_level can be 'read', 'write', or 'owner' and that targets are users or groups, but it does not add significant detail beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb 'Set access rules' on a specific resource 'a Slack List', and specifies the effect: granting read/write/owner to users or groups. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_list_access, which removes access, and create_list/update_list, which manage the list itself.
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?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explicitly mention delete_list_access as the counterpart for removing access, nor does it describe when this should be chosen over similar access-management tools like set_canvas_access. The context must be inferred entirely from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.