list_teamsRetrieves all Gumloop teams associated with the authenticated caller. Supports optional selection of a named private account for team access.
List teams the authenticated caller belongs to. Read operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Named private Gumloop account; selects private credentials and user/team identity. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, and the description's 'Read operation' merely restates readOnlyHint. It adds the caller-scoped filtering detail but says nothing about how the optional account parameter selects credentials, result size, ordering, or pagination.
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?
Two short sentences with the scope front-loaded, which is efficient. The trailing 'Read operation.' sentence is wasted space because it duplicates readOnlyHint=true already in the annotations.
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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not tell the agent what a returned team looks like or what identifiers it yields for downstream calls, which would be the useful addition here.
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 100% and the single optional 'account' parameter is already documented in the schema as selecting private credentials and identity. The description adds no syntax, default, or behavior detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 teams') plus the scope ('the authenticated caller belongs to'), which is meaningfully more precise than the title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from similar listing siblings such as list_organizations or list_accounts.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent must infer from the name alone when this tool is preferable to the other list_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.