machship-mcp

Get Identity Provider

machship_get_identity_provider

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific identity provider by ID to review its authentication configuration and confirm settings.

Instructions

Get a specific identity provider by ID.

Args:

identityProviderId (number): Identity provider ID

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`identityProviderId`	Yes	Identity provider ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`errors`	No	Validation errors returned by Machship, if any
`object`	No	Response payload from the Machship API

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.1Nov 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / identityProviderId / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "errors": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "items": {},
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "Validation errors returned by Machship, if any"
+    },
+    "object": {
+      "description": "Response payload from the Machship API"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.0.0Jun 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does 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 covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on behavior for a missing or invalid ID, whether the provider is scoped to the caller's organisation, or what a null result means.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence states the operation, and it is short with no filler. The trailing Args block duplicates the schema and is technically redundant, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple single-parameter read whose annotations and output schema carry the behavioral and return-value burden. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly, with only minor gaps around invalid-ID handling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 already documented as 'Identity provider ID' with a positive-integer constraint. The description's Args block restates the schema verbatim, adding no format, source, or discovery guidance (e.g., where to obtain the ID). Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a specific identity provider by ID'), which is enough to separate it from the plural/list siblings such as machship_get_identity_providers_for_company. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it lands at a solid 4 rather than 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over machship_get_identity_providers_for_company, _for_logged_user, or _for_organisation, nor any preconditions noted. The 'by ID' phrasing implies a single-record lookup, but the agent must infer the routing decision entirely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server