Retrieve all departments in an organization, ordered by hierarchy, to map organizational structure and support content management.
List all departments in an organization, ordered by their hierarchy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| organization | Yes | organization identification string |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| departments | Yes | ||
| organization | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.9Output schema / properties / departments / items / properties / members_customAdded value: +{
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Output schema / properties / departments / items / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "department",
- "level",
- "permission",
- "members",
- "leaders"
-]New value: +[
+ "department",
+ "level",
+ "permission",
+ "members",
+ "members_custom",
+ "leaders"
+]v2.0.0Output schema / properties / departments / items / properties / department / descriptionRemoved value: -"name of the department"Output schema / properties / departments / items / properties / id / descriptionRemoved value: -"external unique department identifier (if set for the department)"Output schema / properties / departments / items / properties / leaders / descriptionRemoved value: -"leaders of the department"Output schema / properties / departments / items / properties / leaders / items / properties / name / descriptionRemoved value: -"name of the leader"Output schema / properties / departments / items / properties / leaders / items / properties / user / descriptionRemoved value: -"user identification string"Output schema / properties / departments / items / properties / level / descriptionRemoved value: -"depth of the department within the hierarchy (0 for root level departments)"Output schema / properties / departments / items / properties / members / descriptionRemoved value: -"number of (visible) members in the department"Output schema / properties / departments / items / properties / parent / descriptionRemoved value: -"name of the parent department (null for root level departments)"Output schema / properties / departments / items / properties / permission / descriptionRemoved value: -"permissions given to the members of the department"Output schema / properties / departments / items / properties / permission / properties / content / descriptionRemoved value: -"permission level to contents in organization"Output schema / properties / departments / items / properties / permission / properties / members / descriptionRemoved value: -"permission level to members in organization"Output schema / properties / departments / items / properties / permission / properties / organization / descriptionRemoved value: -"permission level to organization"Output schema / properties / organization / descriptionRemoved value: -"organization identification string"v1.2.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that results are 'ordered by their hierarchy,' but says nothing about pagination or depth limits for an openWorldHint listing.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the action and key ordering behavior front-loaded. No wasted text.
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?
An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description needn't explain return values. For a simple one-parameter listing tool it is essentially complete, missing only explicit sibling disambiguation.
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 single 'organization' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'in an organization' adds no syntax or format beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('List') and resource ('departments in an organization'), distinguishing it from siblings like edubase_get_organization_department (singular) and edubase_post_organization_department. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the singular retrieval tool, but the plural/listing scope is clear.
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 listing purpose implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over edubase_get_organization_department (single) or edubase_get_organization_members. Usage is implied rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.