Open an organization by id: name, your role and the CommsHarbor plan. This is how a workspace is opened. Name and role come from the shared account (null with an organization API key, which carries neither); the plan is the organization's global entitlement in CommsHarbor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| organization_id | Yes | Active organization ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully states that name and role come from the shared account and are null with an organization API key, and that plan is the organization's global entitlement. However, it does not mention side effects, error conditions, or response shape details; for a simple get this is acceptable but not fully 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?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by two useful clarifications. The punctuation in 'by id: name, your role and the CommsHarbor plan' is slightly awkward, but every sentence earns its place and there is no fluff.
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 operation with no output schema, the description provides enough context: what is returned, where the data comes from, and how it behaves with different credential types. It lacks explicit error/edge-case detail, but that is not essential for a straightforward organization fetch.
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 is 100% and the single parameter already has a clear description ('Active organization ID'). The description adds little beyond restating that the tool fetches by id, so it does not meaningfully improve on the schema.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Open an organization by id') and tells the agent exactly what data is returned: name, role, and plan. It further clarifies this is how a workspace is opened, distinguishing it from the many other list/get tools in the sibling set.
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 phrase 'This is how a workspace is opened' gives a clear usage context for the tool. It also explains the API-key vs shared-account nuance that affects how the returned fields behave. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but for a singleton organization getter that is not a significant gap.
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.