esa_get_teamsRetrieve the esa.io teams you can access and filter by member or owner role to identify available workspaces for your account.
Retrieves a list of esa teams that the user has access to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (starts from 1) | |
| role | No | Filter by role | |
| perPage | No | Number of items per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.0Does 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 covered. The description adds the access-scoped nature of the results, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result shape.
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?
A single economical sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is short but not padded, so conciseness is a strength rather than an under-specification problem.
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 read-only list tool this is close to adequate, and annotations plus a fully documented schema carry most of the weight. With no output schema, however, the description should ideally hint at the returned team shape or pagination semantics, and it does not.
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%, with page, role, and perPage all documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
States a clear verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('a list of esa teams'), plus a scope qualifier ('that the user has access to'). This is unambiguous, though it never contrasts itself with team-scoped siblings like esa_get_team_members or esa_get_team_stats.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any mention of how pagination or role filtering should drive the call. The agent gets a purpose but no operating context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.