Retrieve a specific group's details by its ID from Follow Up Boss CRM to access group information for real estate workflows.
Retrieve a group by id. (GET /groups/{id})
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| extraQuery | No | Extra raw query parameters not explicitly listed above — e.g. FUB custom field filters like custom.ClosingDate on /people or /deals. Keys and values are sent as-is. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The GET method and the verb 'Retrieve' make the read-only nature clear, which is valuable. However, the description does not disclose what happens on missing ids, the response format, or any pagination/query behavior beyond the endpoint.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence states the action and the endpoint with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation.
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 get-by-id tool, the description plus schema covers the essential call mechanics: the HTTP method, the resource, and the required id parameter. It is slightly incomplete because it does not clarify how this relates to list_groups or get_groups_round_robin, but nothing critical is missing for making a basic successful call.
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?
The description adds no meaning to the parameters. The schema already documents extraQuery in detail, but the required 'id' parameter has no semantic explanation beyond its type, and the description does not compensate for that gap. With only 50% schema description coverage, parameters are only partially clarified.
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 clear verb ('Retrieve'), resource ('group'), and lookup key ('by id'), and includes the REST path GET /groups/{id}. It is clear on its own but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_groups or get_groups_round_robin, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies that you should use it when you already have a group id, but it never names alternatives such as list_groups or get_groups_round_robin, nor does it mention any exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.