get_agent_groupRetrieve a Freshservice agent group by ID, including its members, to verify group details and membership for ITSM routing or assignment decisions.
Get an agent group by ID, including its members.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes | Agent group ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one behavioral detail beyond that — that member records come back with the group — but says nothing about behavior for missing/invalid IDs.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the one non-obvious fact (members are included) appended. No filler.
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?
With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety/idempotency profile, the description only needs to state what the call returns at a coarse level, which it does. Minor gap: it doesn't clarify behavior for nonexistent IDs or how members are represented.
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 parameter is documented as 'Agent group ID', so the schema carries the load. The description only restates 'by ID' and adds no format or sourcing guidance (e.g., where to obtain a group ID).
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 an agent group') plus the lookup key ('by ID') and the response scope ('including its members'). The 'by ID' phrasing implicitly separates it from get_all_agent_groups, 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: you call this when you have a group_id. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_all_agent_groups, and no prerequisites or error conditions noted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.