meetup_groupGet details for one Meetup group by its urlname (the slug in meetup.com/, e.g. "sfpython"). Returns name, description, location, topic category and founding date — never a member list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urlname | Yes | The group's urlname, e.g. "sfpython" (from meetup.com/sfpython). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral content by enumerating what the response contains and explicitly ruling out member lists. It stops short of noting auth needs, rate limits, or failure behavior for an unknown urlname.
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 tightly written sentences with zero filler; the lookup key is front-loaded ahead of the return-value summary.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of summarizing return fields and excluding member data, and with only one required parameter the invocation surface is fully covered. Only minor gap is what happens on an invalid or nonexistent urlname.
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 carries its own description and example, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of the urlname slug only restates the schema rather than adding new semantic constraints.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get details for one Meetup group') plus the exact lookup key (urlname slug) and enumerated return fields. It never names a sibling like meetup_group_events or meetup_event, so differentiation is only implied through the singular 'one group' scope.
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 urlname format with the 'meetup.com/<urlname>' example and the 'sfpython' instance makes prerequisites clear enough to invoke the tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or direction to meetup_group_events / meetup_search_events for the adjacent cases.
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.