Retrieve the details of your Echosaw organization, including the organization name, your role, creation date, and active member count. Returns null if you are not a member of any organization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavior by stating 'Returns null if you are not a member of any organization', which is not inferable from annotations and helps with edge-case handling.
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 a single sentence of about 30 words. It front-loads the action and resource, then enumerates the returned fields. No filler or repetition; every word contributes to the tool's understanding.
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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies what data is returned, includes the null-case behavior, and the annotations cover safety. No further details are necessary for correct invocation.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema properties are empty. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly omits parameter details. There is nothing for the description to add beyond what the schema already conveys.
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 uses 'Retrieve' as a specific verb and clearly identifies the resource: 'your Echosaw organization'. It lists the key fields returned (name, role, creation date, active member count), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_profile that target user-level data.
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 provides clear context: use this tool to obtain organization-level details. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous and the sibling tools serve distinct resources (e.g., profile, folders, media). The intended usage is evident without further guidance.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action and resource: analysis jobs (submit, check, get results, download), folder management (create, delete, list, rename), media operations (list, move, search, set visibility), and account info (organization, profile). There is no overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tools follow the consistent pattern `echosaw_<verb>_<noun>`, using clear verbs like analyze, check, create, delete, get, list, move, rename, search, and set. The naming style is uniform and predictable across the entire set.
With 14 tools, the server covers a well-scoped platform for media analysis and library management. Each tool serves a clear purpose without feeling bloated or sparse, fitting comfortably within the ideal range.
The server covers the full analysis workflow, folder organization, media searching, and account retrieval. Minor gaps exist such as lack of media deletion or job cancellation, but core workflows are well supported and no critical dead ends are apparent.
