Retrieves the members of a specified channel, including the access list for private channels. Returns an error if you lack permission to view the channel.
Members of a channel (§88a). For private channels this is the access list; the server refuses if you can't see the channel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a key authorization behavior: the server refuses if you cannot see the channel, and clarifies that private-channel results are the access list. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but for a simple read-only listing this is substantially transparent.
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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every phrase adds information, and the private-channel behavior is compactly stated.
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?
The tool is simple, output schema exists, and the description covers the main read behavior plus the private-channel authorization nuance. However, it leaves the sole required parameter completely unspecified and offers no sibling differentiation, so it is minimally adequate rather than complete.
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 there is only one parameter, channel. The description does not explain what form the channel identifier takes (name, ID, slug) or any other constraint. It gives no meaning beyond the schema itself.
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 clearly identifies the resource: members of a channel. It goes further by noting that for private channels this is the access list, which helps distinguish the tool from generic channel reads. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like list_channels or list_mesh_members to clarify selection.
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?
Usage context is implied: use this to see who belongs to a channel. The private-channel access-list detail adds useful scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.