agentView

Get Organization

get_organization

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns one organization's details: plan, your role, display count, allocated and remaining license slots. response_format 'detailed' adds the full member list (with roles) and display list. Use after list_organizations. Requires content scope and membership.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`org_id`	Yes	Organization ID from list_organizations or get_account.
`access_token`	No	Optional bearer token; prefer session_request_id.
`response_format`	No	concise (default) returns counts and core fields; detailed adds members and displays arrays.
`session_request_id`	No	Session handle from create_auth_session; pass it on every authenticated call.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`plan`	No
`orgId`	No
`members`	No
`displays`	No
`isActive`	No
`yourRole`	No
`memberCount`	No
`displayCount`	No
`allocatedSlots`	No
`remainingSlots`	No

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds behavioral detail on what fields are returned and how response_format alters the output. It does not contradict annotations and provides new context about membership requirements.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose and key fields; the second adds format options and usage prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the four parameters and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential points: returned data, format options, prerequisite, and requirement. It does not detail return structure (handled by output schema) but is sufficient for agent invocation. Minor gap: no mention of rate limits or scope specifics.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to response_format by explaining the difference between 'concise' and 'detailed', and notes that org_id comes from list_organizations or get_account, supplementing the schema's basic descriptions.

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 the tool returns organization details including specific fields (plan, role, display count, allocated/remaining license slots) and distinguishes between 'concise' and 'detailed' response formats. It differentiates from siblings like list_organizations by focusing on a single organization and listing specific data.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly advises 'Use after list_organizations' and 'Requires content scope and membership,' giving clear context for when to invoke. It does not exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for most use cases.

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

All agentView tools Inspect

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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map cleanly to distinct resource-action pairs (displays, organizations, assets, data slots, store templates, auth). A few clusters like the get_store_template_* family and the auth/session tools could still confuse an agent, but their descriptions are explicit enough to separate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant pattern is consistent verb_noun snake_case (list_*, get_*, create_*, delete_*, send_*, set_*, manage_*). Deviations like fetch, search, authenticate, logout, and pair_by_code are understandable but break the otherwise uniform naming scheme.

Tool Count1/5

With 57 tools this server far exceeds the 50+ threshold, creating an extreme tool-set size for an MCP server. Even though the underlying platform is feature-rich, the sheer number of tools heavily taxes context and selection.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers display, organization, asset, data slot, store template, auth, API key, and licensing lifecycles in impressive depth. Minor gaps exist, such as no delete operation for display categories and no reboot/power control for displays.

Resources

Need Help?