Get one organization you belong to by slug — its id, name, slug, your own role (owner/admin/member), and seat count. The single-org companion to findagent_list_orgs. Only an organization you are an active member of is returned. READ-ONLY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The organization slug (from findagent_list_orgs). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| organization | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by noting the active-membership filtering behavior, which is not visible in annotations or schema, and by outlining the returned fields. No contradiction with annotations.
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 with no filler. The primary action, resource, and return set are front-loaded, and the sibling relationship and membership constraint follow economically.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is fetched, how it is identified, what is returned, the visibility constraint, and the relationship to the sibling listing tool. No missing information an agent needs to invoke it correctly.
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 for the single slug parameter is 100%, including the note that it comes from findagent_list_orgs. The description reinforces the slug-based lookup but does not add substantial parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline holds.
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: 'Get one organization you belong to by slug.' It lists the returned fields (id, name, slug, role, seat count) and differentiates itself as 'The single-org companion to findagent_list_orgs,' so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.
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?
It gives clear context: used to fetch a single organization by slug, only returns organizations where the caller is an active member, and is explicitly the single-org counterpart to findagent_list_orgs. It does not explicitly state when-not to use it (e.g., 'use list_orgs for all organizations'), but the relationship is clear enough.
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.
Every tool targets a clearly scoped resource+action combination, and the versioning variants (bump_version vs repull vs reintrospect_mcp) are explicitly disambiguated by agent kind. Even with 52 tools, the descriptions make each purpose distinct enough to avoid misselection.
Nearly all tools follow the findagent_<verb>_<object> snake_case pattern, and families share predictable verbs like list, create, delete, edit, and submit. Minor exceptions such as findagent_preflight, findagent_whoami, and findagent_earnings keep it from perfect consistency.
At 52 tools, this far exceeds the 25-tool threshold for a coherent MCP surface. The count may reflect a broad platform, but as a single toolset it is heavy and likely to strain agent selection and context.
The surface covers publishing, versioning, knowledge bases, org management, GitHub import, purchases, and the demand board in impressive depth. However, there are notable dead ends: no unpublish/delete for a live agent, no request-fulfillment/linking action, and no org deletion or KB document update.
