Fetch your Team-plan organization's details (name, plan tier, seat allocations, member count, active alerts). Returns 404 if you're not in a Team-plan organization.
Get the caller's Team-plan organization: name, plan tier, seat allocations, member count, and any active alerts. 404s if the caller doesn't belong to a Team-plan organization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned information and the 404 condition for non-Team-plan callers, but does not mention permission requirements, rate limits, or confirm read-only behavior beyond the verb 'Get'.
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?
Two tightly written sentences front-load the resource and its scope, then add the error condition. Every clause contributes useful information without redundancy.
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 no parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete for a zero-argument read tool. It adds the 404 behavior and field list, though it omits any explicit routing to sibling tools or permission requirements.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly describes no input arguments and instead focuses on the resource and its returned 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('caller's Team-plan organization') and enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_organization_members by focusing on the organization object rather than members, though it does not explicitly name that sibling as an alternative.
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 a useful precondition: it 404s if the caller does not belong to a Team-plan organization. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over list_organization_members or other organization-related tools, leaving usage largely implied by the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.