List members of a specific team, fleet, or organization by ID, using pagination to manage large rosters.
List members of a team.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | ||
| skip | No | ||
| parent_id | No | Fleet, team, or organization ID when applicable |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, response format, or scoping constraints.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though its brevity deprives the agent of useful context that could have been added without bloat.
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 no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description must carry more weight. It leaves pagination (top/skip), parent_id semantics, and return values unexplained, so an agent cannot call the tool with full confidence.
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 33%, with top and skip undocumented in the schema. The description says 'team' but the parent_id schema accepts fleet, team, or organization ID, creating ambiguity. It does not explain pagination parameters or which parent_id values are valid.
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 and resource: 'List members of a team.' It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling list tools such as balena_list_teams by focusing on members rather than teams. However, it does not clarify the difference from balena_list_organization_memberships.
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 is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like balena_list_teams or balena_add_team_member. An agent is left to infer usage solely from the name and minimal description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.