add_operator_to_groupMUTATES Olark data: adds an operator to a group (team). Olark API: POST /groups/{group_id}/operators (JSON body { operator_id }). Reversible via remove_operator_from_group. Adding to a nonexistent group returns 404.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes | The group (team) id to add the operator to (path only; required). | |
| operator_id | Yes | The operator id to add (sent in the JSON body; required). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explicitly says the operation MUTATES data, provides the exact HTTP endpoint and body, notes that it is reversible, and documents the 404 error case for nonexistent groups. This gives the agent meaningful behavioral expectations.
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 short sentences deliver purpose, API mechanics, reversibility, and an error condition without any filler. The key mutation warning is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes useful information.
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 two-parameter mutation with full schema, the description is complete: it states what it does, how to invoke it, how to undo it, and an important failure mode. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.
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 schema already documents that group_id is path-only and operator_id is sent in the JSON body. The description repeats this endpoint/body detail rather than adding substantial new parameter meaning.
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 uses a specific verb ('adds') and names the exact resources involved ('operator', 'group/team'). It also mentions the inverse sibling (remove_operator_from_group), which helps distinguish it from related operations without ambiguity.
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 intent is clear: use this when adding an existing operator to a group. It notes reversibility via remove_operator_from_group, which gives context, though it doesn't explicitly state that create_operator is for creating a new operator or list any exclusions.
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.
Each dedicated tool targets a distinct operator or group operation, so the core set is easy to separate. The only ambiguity is olark_request, a generic GET escape hatch that can overlap with list_operators/list_groups, but its purpose is clearly labeled as a power-user fallback.
Most tools follow a clear verb_object snake_case pattern such as create_operator, list_operators, add_operator_to_group, and remove_operator_from_group. olark_request breaks the pattern slightly by being noun-style rather than verb-first, but the rest of the naming is consistent.
Eight tools is a well-scoped count for an Olark operator and group management server. Each tool covers a distinct operation without redundant duplicates or excessive granularity.
Operator coverage includes create, get, list, and update, but there is no delete_operator, which is a notable lifecycle gap. Group management is also incomplete since it only lists groups and manages membership, with no way to create, update, or delete groups.