Fetches a group by group_id, returning display name, description, and timestamps. Discover IDs with list_groups.
Retrieve a specific group by group_id. Returns the group object including display_name, description, and timestamps. Use list_groups to discover group_ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes | A unique identifier for a group. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true already declaring a safe read operation, the description adds that it returns a group object with specific fields (display_name, description, timestamps). This is useful but modest additional context; it doesn't cover error handling or rate limits.
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?
Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return content, and usage pointer. Front-loaded with the core action.
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?
For a simple single-retrieval tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, return fields, and usage routing. It could mention error cases or id format, but is largely complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the group_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that group_id is the identifier but adds no new syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a specific group by group_id.' It clearly distinguishes itself from list_groups and other group-related tools by focusing on single-retrieval by ID.
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?
It explicitly names list_groups as the way to discover group_ids, which provides clear when-to-use context. However, it doesn't mention exclusions or other alternatives like scim_get_group.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.