member_getRetrieve a single organization member using its organization ID and member ID. Use this to fetch member details after finding the IDs with list tools.
Get one organization member by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| memberId | Yes | The organization member id (see member_list). | |
| organizationId | Yes | The organization id. Use organization_list to find it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 fully covered without the description. The description adds no extra behavioral context (no mention of lookup failures, permissions, or 404 behavior), so it neither helps nor contradicts.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Nothing is wasted.
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 read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. The only omission is any hint about what is returned or what happens on a missing id.
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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters even reference sibling tools (member_list, organization_list) for discovery, so the schema carries the full burden. The description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond the schema.
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 ('Get') and resource ('one organization member') scoped by id, which distinguishes it from the sibling member_list by cardinality. It does not name member_list explicitly as the alternative, but the singular scope makes the split inferable.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus member_list (or member_update/delete). The only usage hint lives in the schema descriptions, not in the tool description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.