Retrieve a specific organization from IT Glue by its unique ID to access detailed asset and documentation information.
Get a specific organization by ID from IT Glue
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The organization ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates that it gets an organization by ID; it does not disclose return format, not-found/error behavior, auth requirements, or any rate-limit constraints. This is minimal disclosure for a tool without annotation support.
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 one clean sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource and includes the key scoping qualifier 'specific ... by ID' and the source system 'IT Glue'.
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 one-parameter get-by-ID tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema, so the agent is not told what the tool returns or how it handles a missing ID. A sentence about the response payload or error behavior would make it complete.
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 covers the single `id` parameter with 100% coverage and a description. The tool description's 'by ID' adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource: 'Get a specific organization by ID from IT Glue'. It clearly differentiates this direct fetch from sibling search_organizations by emphasizing 'specific' and 'by ID'.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention search_organizations for lookup-by-criteria, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implicit signal is 'by ID', which is not explicit enough for routing an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.