Fetch all teams in an organization by org_id to manage team review, approval gates, and printer access.
List every team in org_id.
Business adds team review, approval gates, and 3 printers (grow to 50). Requires Kiln Business for the organisation (its owner's plan), not for you: everyone whose role may see it reads it, on any plan of their own. Upgrade: https://kiln3d.com/pricing?src=agent&tool=list_teams
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a plan-gating requirement on the target organisation, which is genuine behavioral context an agent needs. However, it omits the failure mode when the plan requirement is unmet, pagination/size behavior, and any permission implications, so the disclosure is partial.
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 purpose is front-loaded, but the remaining two paragraphs are pricing/marketing copy ('Business adds team review, approval gates, and 3 printers (grow to 50)', an upgrade URL) and a grammatically muddled sentence about who reads the team. These sentences do not help an agent invoke the tool correctly.
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 single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the essentials are mostly present: what is listed, in what scope, and under what plan gate. It still leaves the agent without guidance on identifier source, result size, or behavior on a non-Business org, and the upsell text crowds out that information.
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?
There is one parameter (org_id) with 0% schema description coverage; the schema offers only the title 'Org Id'. The description confirms the list is scoped to a specific org but adds no meaning about the identifier's form or where to obtain it (e.g., list_my_orgs), so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource with an explicit scope ('List every team in *org_id*'), which distinguishes it from create_team/delete_team. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the very close sibling list_my_teams, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the scoping phrase alone.
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?
The description does add a real prerequisite: the organisation must be on the Kiln Business plan. But it never states when to choose this tool over list_my_teams, nor what happens if the org is not on Business (error, empty list, partial results). Usage is implied rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.