Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
esa MCP Server

esa MCP Server

Official
by esaio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get user's accessible esa teams

esa_get_teams
Read-only

Retrieve a list of esa teams you have access to, optionally filtered by role or paginated. Use this to find available teams before managing articles or comments.

Instructions

Retrieves a list of esa teams that the user has access to.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "esa_get_teams"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number (starts from 1)
roleNoFilter by role
perPageNoNumber of items per page

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.15.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv0.13.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the 'user has access to' scoping qualifier and says nothing about result ordering, whether pagination aggregates totals, or the shape of a returned team; with annotations carrying the safety profile, that is an acceptable but thin addition.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and scope come before any qualifier. Nothing is repeated and nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no required parameters, the definition is adequate but minimal. With no output schema present, the description could have said what a returned team looks like (id/name) and whether pagination metadata is returned, which an agent needs to chain into team-scoped siblings.

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 description coverage is 100% — page ('starts from 1'), perPage, and the role enum (member/owner) are all documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves a list of esa teams') plus the scope qualifier 'that the user has access to', so an agent can tell this is a listing endpoint rather than a per-team lookup. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like esa_get_team_members or esa_get_team_stats, which also touch team data.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'call this to discover which teams exist before calling team-scoped tools', but the description never says that, nor does it name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. Minimum viable routing guidance, no explicit rules.

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