Retrieve an organization's settings, including profile, maturity targets, industry, owner teams, and feature switches, by providing its UUID.
Get an organization's settings (read — viewer): profile (business_size, mission_statement), per-domain maturity_targets, name, industry, owner teams and feature switches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org_id | Yes | Organization UUID — obtain from scf_list_organizations |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.7.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true is already given by annotations, but the description adds the required access level ("viewer") and concretely enumerates what the response contains, which is useful scope disclosure for an agent. It does not cover failure modes (e.g. non-existent or unauthorized org) or pagination, so not a 5.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and permission level come first and the field inventory follows. The nested parenthetical with five comma-separated items is dense but each item earns its place by substituting for an absent output schema.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing the returned settings categories, which is exactly the right move. Annotations cover the safety profile. Minor gaps remain around error behavior and whether org_id must be one the caller belongs to.
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 the single org_id parameter already documents its UUID format and points to scf_list_organizations as the source. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, 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?
States a specific verb+resource ("Get an organization's settings") and enumerates the returned fields (profile, maturity_targets, name, industry, teams, feature switches), which meaningfully separates it from scf_get_organization and scf_update_org_settings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.
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 — viewer)" parenthetical implies the caller needs viewer permission and that this is a read path, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer scf_get_organization vs this tool, and no note that scf_update_org_settings is the write counterpart.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.