nc-mcp-server

list_circles

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all circles (teams) visible to the current user, with optional pagination and detailed metadata for each circle.

Instructions

List circles (teams) the current user can see.

Args: limit: Max circles to return. Omit for server default (all). offset: Starting offset for pagination.

Returns: JSON array of circles. Each entry includes id (the string singleId used for sharing), name, displayName, description, config (bitmask), source, population, creation, initiator (current-user membership info: level, status, userId).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`offset`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: pagination semantics via limit/offset, the 'omit limit for all' default, and the return entry shape including the note that id is the singleId used for sharing. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with Args and Returns sections and is front-loaded with the purpose. The return-field enumeration is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but it is compact and does not waste space.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list with two optional parameters, the description covers scope, parameters, and return shape sufficiently. It is not complete in positioning this tool against related circle tools, but an agent can invoke it correctly without additional information.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameters. It clearly explains limit as 'max circles to return' and the server-default/all behavior, and offset as the pagination starting point. Both parameters are meaningfully documented.

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?

The description opens with 'List circles (teams) the current user can see' – a specific verb, resource, and visibility scope. It clearly states what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like search_circles or list_circle_members.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides useful context ('circles the current user can see') that implies when this tool should be used, but it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer. With search_circles, get_circle, and list_circle_members nearby, the selection guidance is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server