Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

list_team_members

Read-only

Retrieves all members of a specified team by team ID, so you can view team membership and access details. Requires the organization to be on Kiln Business.

Instructions

List every member of team_id.

Needs the organisation to be on Kiln Business.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "team_id": "<team_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_team_members"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
team_idYesThe team whose members are listed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / team_id / description
      Added value: +"The team whose members are listed."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds a meaningful entitlement constraint about Kiln Business, but it does not cover return behavior, pagination, or authorization details beyond that plan requirement.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The definition is two short sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every sentence contributes either the operation or the entitlement requirement, with no wasted wording.

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 one-parameter list tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states the scope ('every member') and the Kiln Business requirement, though it could mention pagination or return format if either is relevant.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the sole team_id parameter is already described in the schema as 'The team whose members are listed.' The description references team_id but adds no syntax, format, or selection meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List every member of *team_id*.' That is clear and actionable. It does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as list_org_members, list_teams, or list_my_teams, so it falls short of a 5.

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 names a prerequisite ('Needs the organisation to be on Kiln Business'), which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives like list_org_members or list_my_teams, so usage 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

Other Tools