Retrieve channels in a Microsoft Teams team by team_id to get channel IDs, names, descriptions, and membership types. Use list_teams first to find the team_id.
List channels in a Microsoft Teams team.
Use list_teams first to get the team_id. Returns channel id, name, description, and membership type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a safe read, and it names the returned fields, but it says nothing about pagination, permissions, or result limits for a lookup that could span many channels.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, prerequisite, and return shape, all front-loaded with no filler.
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 list tool with an output schema, the definition covers purpose, prerequisite, and returns. The only gap is the absence of any note on pagination or result volume.
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 coverage is 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that team_id comes from list_teams, which is genuinely useful provenance beyond what the bare 'Team Id' property conveys.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List channels in a Microsoft Teams team'), scoping it to a team distinct from sibling tools like list_teams or list_channel_messages. An agent can determine what this returns without opening the schema.
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?
Explicit prerequisite: 'Use list_teams first to get the team_id.' This tells the agent the correct order of operations. It lacks any when-not or alternative guidance, but the conditional context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.