Fetch detailed member information from an Alibaba Cloud DevOps organization using a user ID. Provide the organization ID to retrieve accurate member role and access data.
Get information about a member in an organization by user ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes | 用户 ID | |
| organizationId | Yes | 组织 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning read-only nature, required permissions, potential failure modes, or returned data characteristics. For a get operation, it's reasonable to assume read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.
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 conveys the essential purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no extraneous words or fluff, making it easy to scan.
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 description is too sparse for an unannotated tool with no output schema. It does not explain what 'information' is returned, how it differs from get_organization_member_info, or any constraints like whether it requires membership confirmation. Given the complexity of the domain (organization tools), more detail is expected.
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% with both parameters described (user ID and organization ID). The description restates the userId purpose but adds no new meaning about organizationId or how the parameters relate. It provides minimal additional value over the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action (get), resource (member information), and scope (by user ID within an organization). However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_organization_member_info or list_organization_members, which could lead to ambiguity about when this specific variant is needed.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_organization_member_info, list_organization_members, or search_organization_members. The description lacks context about prerequisites, exclusivity, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.