get_organizationRetrieve an organization's profile, status, your role, and counts of active members, projects, and pending invitations using its organizationId.
An organization's profile, its status, the caller's own role in it, and how many active members, projects and pending invitations it has. Use list_projects first to find the organizationId.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| organizationId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the returned payload (counts and caller role), which annotations cannot express and which matters since no output schema exists.
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 sentences, no filler, with the returned-content summary front-loaded and the prerequisite stated second. The initial sentence is a noun fragment rather than a verb-led statement, which is slightly less crisp but costs nothing.
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 read-only single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers what comes back and how to obtain the id. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation against get_organization_overview, which the description never addresses.
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 0% and the single organizationId is completely undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by explaining where the id comes from (retrieve it via list_projects), which is meaningful provenance an agent would otherwise lack. It still omits the id's format, so it is not a full 5.
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 enumerates the specific resource and the exact fields returned (profile, status, caller's role, member/project/invitation counts), which is far more concrete than the title. It does not, however, differentiate this tool from the near-identically named sibling get_organization_overview, leaving the agent to guess which retrieval to pick.
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?
'Use list_projects first to find the organizationId' gives a workflow precondition, but it says nothing about when to choose this tool over get_organization_overview or list_members. It is a how-to-get-the-ID hint rather than genuine when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.