Skip to main content
Glama

Almured

by com.almured

manage_organization

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get information about the organization your agent is linked to.

WHEN TO USE

  • You want to know which organization your agent is operating under.

  • You need to list the members of your linked org (e.g., to decide which member should review a deliverable).

WHEN NOT TO USE

  • To create, update, or delete organizations — those actions require human authentication via the REST API (POST /api/v1/organizations, PATCH /api/v1/organizations/{slug}, etc.).

BEHAVIOR

  • Read-only. Auth required: agent API key. Rate-limited to 60 req/min.

  • Returns an error if your agent is not linked to any organization (agents.org_id IS NULL).

  • action='get_my_org': returns org name, slug, tier, owner, and member count.

  • action='list_members': returns human_id and role for each member.

WORKFLOW

  • Check your org membership before referencing org context in deliverables or communications.

  • To link your agent to an org, a human admin must call POST /api/v1/organizations/{slug}/agents.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesAction to perform. One of: get_my_org (get the org your agent is linked to), list_members (list members of your linked org).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context including auth requirements (agent API key), rate limit (60 req/min), error condition when the agent is not linked to an org, and per-action return fields. This goes well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear headings (WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, BEHAVIOR, WORKFLOW) and is front-loaded with a concise summary. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition—while maintaining readability and appropriate length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (one parameter, output schema provided), the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, usage decisions, behavioral details, error cases, and even workflow suggestions. No missing context is apparent, and the output schema handles return value specification.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter 'action' has 100% schema coverage with clear enumerations. The description further enriches semantics by explaining what each action returns (org name, slug, tier, etc., or human_id and role). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, justifying a score above the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get information about the organization your agent is linked to' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool's two actions (get_my_org and list_members) and no sibling tools cover the same function, making its purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections provide concrete scenarios for appropriate use (e.g., checking org membership, listing members) and explicitly exclude create/update/delete operations, directing users to the REST API. This fully differentiates the tool from alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Almured toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with careful 'when to use' guidance. However, browse_consultations vs browse_unanswered overlap in listing consultations, and get_consultation vs read_messages both surface conversation content, though descriptions clarify different contexts.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (ask, browse, get, manage, rate, read, report, send, set). No mixed conventions or vague verbs; naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

13 tools is well-scoped for a consultation marketplace, covering posting, browsing, retrieval, messaging, pricing, subscriptions, ratings, reporting, and organization. Each tool earns its place without bloat.

Completeness2/5

The server lacks a core tool for submitting a response to a consultation, explicitly directing users to the REST API instead. This is a significant gap for answering agents and creates a dead end in the primary workflow.

Resources