get_family_group Get the user's family group info, members, and role.
Returns:
Family group details with member list, or message if not in a group
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the return format ('family group details with member list') and the edge case of not being in a group ('message if not in a group'), which are useful behavioral details beyond the 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?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then states the return behavior, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 parameterless read tool, the description provides the essential return information and the not-in-group case. Without an output schema, it could be slightly more detailed about the exact fields in the member list, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and output.
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, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description does not add anything beyond the schema, but the baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool is appropriate.
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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('family group info, members, and role'), which distinguishes it from more specific siblings like list_family_members. It is concise and unambiguous, though it could be slightly more explicit about the exact scope of 'info'.
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 this tool is for retrieving the user's family group details, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from related tools like list_family_members or get_family_activity. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned, so usage guidance is left to inference.
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.