Lists visible Slack channels and direct messages, with optional type filters and cursor-based pagination for retrieving additional pages.
List visible Slack channels and DMs. Follow response_metadata.next_cursor for more pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| types | No | public_channel,private_channel,im,mpim | |
| cursor | No | next_cursor from the previous page; omit for the first page. | |
| exclude_archived | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful pagination behavior via response_metadata.next_cursor and clarifies the visibility scope, but it does not explain what 'visible' means, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the return structure.
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 description is two short sentences with no wasted text. The core purpose and pagination instruction are front-loaded and easy to scan.
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?
With four optional parameters, a moderate schema, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. Defaults reduce the burden, yet the description does not explain how limit, types, or exclude_archived affect results, leaving gaps for callers relying on the description.
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 only 25%, with just the cursor parameter documented. The description mentions channels and DMs, loosely mapping to the types parameter, but it does not explain the allowed type values, the limit parameter, or exclude_archived, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List visible Slack channels and DMs.' It clearly identifies the object being listed and its scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as slack_read_channel or slack_search_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?
Usage is implied for discovering visible conversations, and the pagination instruction is explicit. However, there is no guidance on when to use this instead of alternatives like slack_search_messages or slack_read_channel, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.