ogarniai_get_groupRetrieve detailed information about a finance group by its ID, including name, description, owner, status, and member count.
Get details of a specific finance group.
Args:
groupId (string): Group ID (UUID format)
Returns: JSON with group details including id, name, description, owner, isActive, isArchived, memberCount
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| groupId | Yes | Resource ID (UUID format) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the return structure (JSON with specific fields), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not disclose error handling or authentication, but given the annotations, this added return-format context earns a 4.
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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a structured Args/Returns docstring. Every sentence contributes to caller understanding without redundancy or irrelevant detail, making it highly efficient.
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 single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the exact parameter, the return format with all fields, and is backed by annotations covering idempotency and read-only behavior. Nothing essential for an agent to successfully invoke the tool is missing.
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 input schema already fully documents groupId with a description and UUID format (100% coverage). The description repeats 'groupId (string): Group ID (UUID format)' without adding new meaning, so per the rubric the baseline of 3 is appropriate; it adds no semantic value 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?
The description clearly states 'Get details of a specific finance group,' specifying the verb, resource, and that it targets a single group. The Returns line enumerates the fields (id, name, description, owner, isActive, isArchived, memberCount), making the purpose precise and distinguishing it from the sibling ogarniai_list_groups which lists all groups.
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?
Usage is implied: to retrieve a single group's details, this tool is used with a groupId. However, the description does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over the sibling ogarniai_list_groups, nor does it state any preconditions or alternatives. There is no when-not guidance, so it relies on the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.