Create a new team in your organization. You will be added as team lead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Team name | |
| objectives | No | Team objectives as a list of strings (optional) | |
| description | No | Team description (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the user will be added as team lead, which is a non-obvious side effect. However, it doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, or any return details, so it is informative but not comprehensive.
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 no filler. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and follows with the key side effect.
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 create operation with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description effectively conveys the essential behavior. It might be slightly thin on return behavior or prerequisites, but it's sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The side effect of becoming team lead adds valuable 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 100%, covering 'name', 'objectives', and 'description' with clear descriptions. The tool description doesn't add parameter-specific details, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool creates a new team in the user's organization, using the verb 'create' and resource 'team'. It is distinguished from siblings like update_team, delete_team, and add_team_member by its focus on creation. The additional note about being added as team lead further clarifies the tool's role.
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?
The description implies usage when a new team is needed, with no explicit alternatives or exclusions. It provides clear context by scoping the operation to 'your organization' and noting the creator becomes team lead, but it doesn't name sibling tools like add_team_member for comparison. This is clear context without exclusions, meriting a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct resource+action pairs (e.g., create_task vs update_task vs delete_task), but the large number of list/get/search tools creates some potential confusion, especially between get_context, search_entities, and find_documents. Descriptions are detailed and help, but the volume makes navigation less clear.
The majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, delete_, list_, update_, etc.), with clear prefixes like add/remove and link/unlink. Deviations like 'whoami', 'find_documents' vs 'search_entities', and 'setup_organization' prevent a perfect score.
62 tools is far beyond the typical MCP server scope and overwhelms agents with too many choices. Even if each tool is individually useful, the sheer count makes it difficult for an agent to efficiently select the right tool, increasing the likelihood of misselection.
The domain is well covered for projects, tasks, teams, sessions, and notifications, but there are notable gaps: no update_document, no get_task (only list/update/delete), no get_user, no reject_invite, and sprint management lacks update/delete operations. Core CRUD is present for many entities, but not all.
