Retrieve a specific SCIM group by group_id to view its full resource, including the members array. Use it to inspect group details and membership for identity management.
Retrieve a specific SCIM group by group_id. Returns the full SCIM Group resource including members array.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes | ID of the group. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the annotation carries the safety profile. The description adds the return shape ('full SCIM Group resource including members array'), which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior on unknown IDs, or whether members are paginated.
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?
Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return value immediately after. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the returned resource and the members array, which is the key detail for a get-by-id call. It stops short of covering error cases or auth requirements, leaving a minor gap for a tool this simple.
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 description coverage is 100% and the required group_id is already documented in the schema as 'ID of the group.' The description names the parameter but adds no format, source, or constraint beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (SCIM group) scoped by group_id, so an agent can distinguish it from list-style siblings like scim_list_groups. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but 'a specific ... group by group_id' adequately contrasts with the list variants.
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?
Usage is only implied — you use it when you already have a group_id, versus scim_list_groups when you don't. There is no explicit when/when-not statement and no named alternative, so an agent must infer the routing decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.