groupGroup detail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Group ID | |
| name | No | Group name | |
| owner | No | Group owner information | |
| created | No | Group creation date (ISO 8601) | |
| updated | No | Last updated date (ISO 8601) | |
| description | No | Group description | |
| memberCount | No | Number of group members | |
| publicEntryAllowed | No | Whether public entry is allowed |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "group_id": 1
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Group detail information",
+ "properties": {
+ "created": {
+ "description": "Group creation date (ISO 8601)",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "description": {
+ "description": "Group description",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Group ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "memberCount": {
+ "description": "Number of group members",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Group name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "owner": {
+ "description": "Group owner information",
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Owner user ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Owner username",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "publicEntryAllowed": {
+ "description": "Whether public entry is allowed",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "updated": {
+ "description": "Last updated date (ISO 8601)",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, not destructive, and idempotent, providing a baseline for safety. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., what is returned or any side effects), but does not contradict 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?
At two words, the description is overly terse and does not earn its keep. It lacks structure and omits essential information, making it ineffective despite being front-loaded.
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?
Given the low complexity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is still incomplete. It fails to define the tool's purpose, what it outputs, or any relevant context, leaving a significant gap.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to explain the 'group_id' parameter's meaning or usage. The schema alone provides minimal guidance (number type), and the description adds nothing.
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 'Group detail' is vague, lacking a verb and not specifying what type of group or detail. It is almost a tautology, essentially restating the tool name without adding clarity. It does not distinguish from siblings like 'entity_profile'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, especially within the Roblox and Pipeworx domains. However, the three variants of ask_pipeworx (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) are very similar and could cause confusion, as could deep_research vs ask_pipeworx.
Naming conventions are mixed: snake_case (user_followers_count), verb_noun with underscores (ask_pipeworx), and camelCase (recall, forget). Roblox tools follow a consistent 'user_' prefix, but Pipeworx tools lack a uniform pattern.
41 tools is excessive for a server named 'Roblox'. The majority of tools are Pipeworx data utilities, which are unrelated to the server's apparent focus. This overloading undermines coherence.
Coverage within the Roblox domain is basic (user profiles, friends, games) but misses common features like asset details or group management. Pipeworx appears comprehensive for data lookups, but the overall set lacks unified domain completeness.