Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
litmos-mcp

litmos-mcp

by dbuxton
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

litmos_get_user_teams

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all teams a user belongs to for analyzing organizational structure and filtering completion data by team.

Instructions

Get all teams that a user is assigned to.

Useful for understanding a user's organisational grouping or filtering completion data by team membership.

Args: params: UserIdInput with: - user_id (str): Litmos encrypted user ID

Returns: str: JSON array of teams: [{"Id": str, "Name": str, "TeamCodeForBulkImport": str, "ParentTeamId": str}, ...]

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": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "litmos_get_user_teams"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds details about the return format (JSON array of teams with specific fields), which 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise: one line for purpose, one for usage context, then param/return specs. No wasted words, properly front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool has only one parameter, annotations are present, and output schema is described, the description is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke and use the tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the tool description explains the parameter 'user_id (str): Litmos encrypted user ID', adding value beyond the schema's title and minLength. The output schema is also described.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get all teams that a user is assigned to', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It also provides usage context that distinguishes from sibling tools like litmos_get_user_courses.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains when to use: 'for understanding a user's organisational grouping or filtering completion data by team membership'. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct sibling comparison, but context is clear.

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