Retrieve detailed information about a specific department in an organization by supplying both organization and department identifiers.
Get information about a department in an organization
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Department ID | |
| organizationId | Yes | Organization ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.60Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get information,' which implies read-only, but it does not disclose return shape, error behavior, permissions, or whether any related data is included. This adds little beyond the tool name.
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 a single concise sentence that is immediately readable and front-loaded with the action and target. There is no filler or redundant content.
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 get-by-ID tool with two clearly documented parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify what 'information' is returned, leaving a notable gap for an agent predicting the tool's result.
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% for both parameters ('Organization ID' and 'Department ID'), so the structured schema already documents them. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, such as where to find the IDs or how they relate, but the baseline is met because the schema handles the heavy lifting.
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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'Get information about a department in an organization.' It identifies the target as a single department, which distinguishes it from list_organization_departments and get_organization_department_ancestors, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives or specify what 'information' includes.
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 description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the required IDs. There is no mention of when to choose this over list_organization_departments or get_organization_department_ancestors.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.