machship-mcp

Get Organisation Public Key

machship_get_organisation_public_key

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves an organisation's public key for setting up inter-organisation links, optionally by organisation ID or the current organisation.

Instructions

Returns the public key for an organisation, used to set up inter-organisation links.

Args:

id (number, optional): Organisation ID (defaults to current org)

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No	Organisation ID (optional)

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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 fully covered structurally. The description contributes one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that omitting id falls back to the current organisation — but says nothing about key sensitivity, sharing, or failure modes for an invalid id.

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?

A short, front-loaded purpose sentence followed by the single parameter note; nothing extraneous. The args block partially duplicates the schema, but its inclusion of the default rule justifies the repetition.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, the definition covers purpose, default behavior and the linking context. The only minor gap is that it does not address what happens if the org has no key or the id is invalid, which an agent might want to anticipate.

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

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by disclosing the default behavior ("defaults to current org"), which the schema's "Organisation ID (optional)" does not state. That default is exactly the kind of semantic an agent needs to decide whether to pass id at all.

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 the public key for an organisation") plus the business purpose (setting up inter-organisation links). This separates it reasonably well from siblings like machship_reset_organisation_public_key and machship_get_organisation_by_public_key, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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?

The phrase "used to set up inter-organisation links" implies the workflow context in which to call it, which is more than nothing. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use boundaries, no mention of the related link/reset/key-lookup tools, and no prerequisites for the linking flow.

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

Deploy Server