list_channelsList channels in a Microsoft Teams team to retrieve their IDs, display names, and membership type (standard/private/shared), enabling targeted selection for further operations.
List the channels in a team, with their ids, display names, and membership type (standard/private/shared).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team_id | Yes | Team id (from list_teams) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the output fields but no additional behavioral context such as pagination, filtering, or access requirements. With strong annotations, this is acceptable but not exceptional.
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?
One sentence with no wasted words, and the core action and resource are front-loaded before the field list. Every part of the description earns its place.
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 simple list operation with one parameter and annotations covering the behavioral profile, the description is nearly complete. It names the return fields despite the lack of an output schema, but it does not mention edge cases like empty teams or access errors, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter team_id is described as 'Team id (from list_teams)', which clarifies its origin. The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('channels in a team'), and lists the returned fields (ids, display names, membership type). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that deal with chats or channel messages.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_chats or get_channel_messages. The mention of 'in a team' and the team_id parameter imply a use case, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.