One group with its members (client ids and names). Use the clientId values with the other client tools.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "get_client_group"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful return-shape context by saying the group comes with members and their client ids/names, but it does not mention not-found behavior, permissions, or any other operational details.
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?
Two short sentences with no wasted text. The core return shape is front-loaded, and the follow-up sentence adds practical context.
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 output schema, the description usefully states that the result includes member client ids and names. The main gap is that it does not clarify what the input 'id' represents or what happens if the group is not found.
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?
There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains that 'id' is the group id. It only mentions the clientId values inside the returned members, which do not correspond to the input parameter.
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 identifies a single group and states that it includes members with client ids and names. It distinguishes itself from list_client_groups by saying 'One group,' though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or use a strong retrieval verb.
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?
It gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_client_groups, get_group_overview, or list_groups_for_client. The only usage-oriented sentence ('Use the clientId values with the other client tools') concerns downstream use of returned ids, not when to invoke this tool.
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.