list_my_organization_memberships【需要登录】本人组织关系：joined 已在册，pending 申请中/被拒但未入会，后者无管理权限。scope=applications 仅未入会且待审/30天内被拒，最多50。membershipId → update_my_organization_membership 控推广；组织 id → list_organization_applications 审申请/list_my_organization_tasks 看任务。协议正文与答卷另查 get_organization(includeTermsBody=true)。逐组织展开较重，别循环查。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | applications=仅申请中；省略列全部关系 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / scopeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "applications=仅申请中；省略列全部关系",
+ "enum": [
+ "applications"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds important context beyond them: login requirement, status meanings, no management permission for pending/rejected entries, a 50-item cap for applications, and a performance warning against per-organization looping.
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?
The description is dense but front-loads the login requirement and core status semantics before routing guidance. Most sentences earn their place, though the packed Chinese phrasing makes it slightly harder to scan.
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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies all needed context: status meanings, scope behavior, limits, related tools, and a performance caveat.
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%, so the schema already documents scope. The description still adds useful meaning: applications means not-yet-joined plus pending or rejected within 30 days, capped at 50.
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 states this returns the user's organization relationships and distinguishes joined vs pending/rejected statuses, so the resource is clear. It also names related tools, but the opening lacks an explicit list verb, keeping it just short of a 5.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance for scope=applications, explains the status filters, and routes related actions to update_my_organization_membership, list_organization_applications, and list_my_organization_tasks. The warning '逐组织展开较重，别循环查' is a clear when-not-to-use constraint.
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.