Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Fulcra MCP Server

Fulcra MCP Server

by fulcradynamics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Get Groups

get_groups
Read-only

List Fulcra groups or fetch one group's full details. Use it to find a group ID for sharing data with multiple users at once via create_share.

Instructions

List Fulcra groups, or get one group's full details.

A group is a set of Fulcra users; share with all of them at once by passing its ID as with_group_ids to create_share. Lists public and owned groups with long-form fields omitted (private groups the user joined appear only with subscribed_only); pass group_id for one group's complete record.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
group_idNoReturn this single group in full detail.
subscribed_onlyNoList only groups the user has joined. Entries then include the user's participant_id and joined_at.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.18.7
    • removedInput schema / properties / group_id / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • removedInput schema / properties / group_id / default
      Removed value: -null
    • addedInput schema / properties / group_id / type
      Added value: +"string"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "type": "object",
-  "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +null
  2. Addedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive, so the description is not burdened with safety details. It adds useful behavioral context: lists public and owned groups with long-form fields omitted, private joined groups appear only with subscribed_only, and group_id returns the complete record.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and void of filler. The middle explanation is necessary for understanding listing behavior, though it could be slightly more compact.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only list/get tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how filtering works. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds nuance beyond the schema: private groups the user joined appear only with subscribed_only, and group_id returns full detail, which clarifies the filtering behavior.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States specific verbs (List, get) and resource (Fulcra groups), and clearly distinguishes between listing multiple groups and retrieving a single group by ID. An agent can differentiate it from siblings like create_group or join_group.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explains when to use listing vs single-group retrieval, and mentions sharing via create_share. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like get_user_info for user lists, leaving some inference to the agent.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools