Balena MCP

balena_add_team_member

Add a user to a team by specifying their numeric user ID and the team ID.

Instructions

Add a user to a team by numeric user ID.

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": {
      "team_id": "<team_id>",
      "user_id": "<user_id>"
    },
    "name": "balena_add_team_member"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`team_id`	Yes
`user_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already indicate that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the concrete behavioral fact that it creates a team membership, which is not fully expressed by the annotations. However, it does not disclose permission requirements, duplicate-membership behavior, or failure modes, so it stops at adequate rather than rich.

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 a single sentence with no filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, and every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter mutation.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations present, the description is minimally callable. But it lacks any mention of duplicate-membership implications, permission requirements, or how to obtain team/user IDs, and it gives no usage guidance relative to sibling tools. Adequate, but with clear gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameter semantics. It only clarifies that user_id is numeric, which is already implied by the schema type, and it does not meaningfully explain team_id or how an agent should discover either ID. The value added beyond the raw schema is minimal.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Add') and the target ('a user to a team'), with a precise scope qualifier ('by numeric user ID'). It distinguishes the tool from obvious siblings like remove_team_member and add_organization_member because it is specifically about team membership, though it does not explicitly contrast those alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus balena_remove_team_member, balena_add_organization_member, or balena_get_team. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when a different membership operation would be more appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server