get_teamFetch a team and its member accounts by providing the team ID. This action returns the team details needed for managing social media content across platforms.
One team with its member accounts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| teamId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that the result contains a team and its member accounts; it does not state that the operation is read-only, what the response format is, or any error or permission characteristics.
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 extremely concise at six words, with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is slightly too terse to earn a 5, but it is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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 single-parameter read tool, the description plus the required teamId in the schema provide a minimally workable picture. However, with no output schema or annotations, the description does not fully explain the return structure, member account representation, or any operational context.
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 0%, and the description does not mention teamId at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but with no schema descriptions and no description-level compensation, the agent gets little semantic guidance beyond the property name and type.
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 phrase 'One team with its member accounts' clearly identifies the resource and scope, distinguishing this from list_teams and get_account. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a statement with an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', so it stops short of a fully specified purpose.
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?
Saying 'One team' implies retrieval of a single team, which imperfectly contrasts with the sibling list_teams. No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative exclusions are provided, so the usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.