Retrieve all members of a PagerDuty team by providing the team ID to get a list of user references.
List members of a team.
Args:
team_id: The ID of the team
Returns:
List of UserReference objects
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., no mention of permissions, rate limits, or side effects), but does not contradict the annotations either.
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 extremely concise with three short sentences: purpose, parameter documentation, and return documentation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
Given that an output schema exists and annotations are present, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and return type. It could be slightly improved by mentioning potential edge cases (e.g., empty team) or pagination, but for a simple list operation, it is sufficiently complete.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explicitly documents the sole parameter 'team_id: The ID of the team', adding clear meaning beyond the schema's title. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 'List members of a team.' which specifies the verb (list) and resource (members of a team). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_teams (lists teams) and list_users (lists users).
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this tool is for retrieving members of a specific team, not for listing all users or teams, which could be confusing given the many list_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.