Get the user group code for a given user identification to identify group membership.
Get the code of the user group a user belongs to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | Yes | user identification string |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | Yes | ||
| group | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Output schema / properties / group / descriptionRemoved value: -"user group code"Output schema / properties / user / descriptionRemoved value: -"the user identification string"v1.1.2Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "group": {
+ "description": "user group code",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "user": {
+ "description": "the user identification string",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "user",
+ "group"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v1.0.22Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the tool's purpose, such as behavior for unknown users, multiple groups, or authentication requirements.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 read-only lookup with one documented parameter and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could be improved by clarifying what happens when a user has no group or multiple groups, but those are edge cases rather than core gaps.
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 has 100% coverage for the single 'user' parameter and describes it as a 'user identification string'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the documentation burden.
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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('the code of the user group a user belongs to'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like edubase_post_user_group, edubase_get_user_classes, and edubase_get_user_organizations, which target different actions or entities.
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 read-only intent is implied by 'Get', so an agent can infer it is appropriate when needing a user's group code. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.