Fetch one issue group by ID, including all its issues and any linked tracker task, to inspect grouped security findings.
Fetch a single issue group including all its issues and any linked tracker task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what is returned (all issues plus any linked tracker task), but says nothing about read-only nature, required permissions, error behavior for a missing group, or response size/pagination.
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 no filler. The verb and resource come first, followed by the useful return-scope detail.
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?
The tool is simple (one required integer, no nested objects, no output schema), and the description adequately conveys what is returned, partially compensating for the missing output schema. However, it leaves the only parameter completely unexplained and provides no usage or permission context.
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% and the single required parameter group_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The description only implies that one group is identified, without explaining the ID's format, source, or meaning, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ('Fetch'), resource ('a single issue group'), and scope ('including all its issues and any linked tracker task'). The word 'single' implicitly separates it from sourcery_list_groups and the resource separates it from sourcery_get_finding, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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 only implied by the return contents: you'd call it when you need full detail for one group rather than a list. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., sourcery_list_groups) to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.