get_conversation_members【需要登录】群成员名片墙：每位成员的 headline（活动群优先取他本场报名答的「我能提供」，否则站内 bio/canOffer/intro），加主办团队 owner/admin 与官方号 official 标记，以及这个群挂在哪场活动上（activity 非空 = 活动群）。不含任何联系方式。
【只对群】拿 DM 的 id 调会 400 group_only——DM 想知道对方是谁看 get_creator。退了群或从来不在群里一律 404。 【组合链】本工具扫全场 headline → 跟 get_my_card 的 canOffer 对上号 → get_creator 尽调 → start_conversation 开聊（群里不换联系方式）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| conversationId | Yes | 群会话 id，从 list_my_conversations 拿 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds substantial context: login requirement, group_only 400 error, 404 for non-members, headline precedence rules, and the explicit absence of contact information. This goes well 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?
Three labeled sections deliver high-value constraints and workflow guidance without wasted words. The most important semantics, headline precedence and group-only scope, are front-loaded, and the combined-chain section is scannable and actionable.
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 carries the burden of explaining return content, and it does well: headline source priority, member marks, activity linkage, and no-contact-info are all covered. It does not spell out the exact member-list structure or whether member IDs are included, which is a minor gap for downstream use.
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 schema already documents conversationId as a group conversation id sourced from list_my_conversations, covering 100% of the parameter. The description adds the critical constraint that passing a DM id produces 400 group_only, which materially improves the agent's understanding of valid input.
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?
Description states exactly what the tool returns: a group-member name-card wall with each member's headline, host-team marks, official marks, and the linked activity. It also clarifies scope by distinguishing group conversations from DMs and naming get_creator as the alternative for DMs, so it is clearly differentiated from siblings.
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 explicitly says the tool is group-only: calling it with a DM conversationId returns 400 group_only, and non-members or people who left get 404. It also names alternatives (get_creator for DM identity) and provides a full workflow chain with get_my_card, get_creator, and start_conversation.
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.