list_teamsRetrieve teams and their member accounts to identify available collaboration groups and account access before posting or scheduling social media content.
Teams with their member accounts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description's one value-add is that results are denormalized with member accounts embedded, which tells the agent something about payload shape that the (empty) input schema cannot.
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?
Six words with zero filler and the scope qualifier front-loaded after the resource. It is a noun fragment rather than a clause, which is mildly under-specified, but nothing is wasted.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return shape; it partially does so by noting embedded member accounts. It says nothing about pagination, result volume, or what fields a team record holds, which are the remaining gaps for a listing tool in a workspace of 40+ siblings.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter semantics are missing or misstated.
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 fragment "Teams with their member accounts" identifies the resource and, via the tool name list_teams, implies enumeration, so an agent can guess the operation. But there is no explicit verb in the description and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_team, list_accounts, or describe_platform.
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 call this versus get_team (single team) or list_accounts (accounts as the primary resource). The 'with their member accounts' clause hints at a use case but never states the selection condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.