telgea_create_teamCreates a team with an optional emoji, cost code, and initial members, enabling write-enabled Telgea accounts to organize users into groups.
Create a team, optionally with members. Requires TELGEA_ENABLE_WRITES=true on the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| emoji | No | ||
| userIds | No | Initial members. | |
| costCode | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false and openWorld=true. The description adds the meaningful server-side write gate, which the agent could not infer from annotations, but says nothing about duplicate-name behavior, whether the new team is returned with an id, or side effects on supplied userIds.
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?
Two short sentences with zero waste; the capability statement is front-loaded and the prerequisite follows. Nothing redundant is repeated from the name or schema.
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?
For a non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the core action and the write-gating constraint, which is the most important operational fact. It stops short of what an agent needs to chain the call — notably whether a team identifier is returned — and leaves two of four parameters unexplained.
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 coverage is only 25% — only userIds carries a description. The description gestures at userIds ("optionally with members") but leaves emoji and costCode entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving half the call surface opaque for a write operation.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Create a team") and scopes it with "optionally with members." It is clearly distinguishable from telgea_update_team and telgea_list_teams by the creation verb, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the create verb and the optional-members scope, and the TELGEA_ENABLE_WRITES=true prerequisite is a genuinely useful gating condition. However, there is no explicit steering toward or away from telgea_create_user, telgea_update_team, or guidance on when to add members at creation vs. later.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.