Retrieve a single Accelo group by its ID to fetch group details and optional extra fields for CRM reporting and access management.
Get a single group by ID (Beta).
Args: id: Group ID fields: Additional fields to return
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| fields | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies read-only access and '(Beta)' is disclosed, but permissions, side effects, rate limits, and output behavior are absent.
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 front-loaded and compact: purpose first, then a clean Args section. Every line contributes to identifying the operation or its inputs.
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-by-ID tool, the description supplies enough to call it correctly: required group ID and optional fields. However, with no annotations or output schema, it leaves return shape, auth, and beta caveats unaddressed.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'id' is a Group ID and 'fields' are additional fields to return, but it does not specify the expected format or syntax for 'fields'.
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 and resource: 'Get a single group by ID.' This clearly distinguishes retrieving one group from listing or counting groups, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as accelo_list_groups. The phrase 'by ID' only weakly implies that an ID is available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.