machship-mcp

Get Organisation Links

machship_get_organisation_links

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves all partnership and integration links for an organisation, letting you specify an organisation ID or default to the current authenticated organisation.

Instructions

Returns all links (partnerships/integrations) that exist for an organisation.

Args:

id (number, optional): Organisation ID (leave blank for current authenticated org)

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No	Organisation ID (optional, defaults to current org)

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 / id / 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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds modest context by defining links as partnerships/integrations and by explaining the default-to-current-org behavior, but says nothing about result shape, pagination, or permissions beyond what the annotations imply.

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?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words. The appended 'Args:' block largely duplicates the schema, which is slightly redundant but brief enough not to harm readability.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With a single optional parameter, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the definition is adequate to call the tool. It falls short on disambiguation from the four other organisation-link tools, which is the main missing piece for correct tool selection.

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 schema already states the id is optional and defaults to the current org. The description restates the same meaning ('leave blank for current authenticated org'), adding marginal clarification but no new information such as ID ranges or validation constraints.

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 ('Returns all links... for an organisation') and clarifies that links mean partnerships/integrations. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as machship_get_linked_from_organisations, machship_get_linked_to_organisations, machship_add_organisation_link and machship_remove_organisation_link, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone whether this returns all links or only one direction.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the name and by the note that the id may be left blank for the current authenticated org, which is a useful calling context. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative link-related tools that would select a different call.

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

Deploy Server