Skip to main content
Glama
AliMail Admin MCP

AliMail Admin MCP

by mfc-open

获取部门信息

get_department
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch department details by ID to view managers, email, user count, and hierarchy flags; pass $root to retrieve the organization root department.

Instructions

根据部门 ID 获取部门信息;id 传 $root 返回组织根部门。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_department"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes部门 ID;使用 $root 表示组织根部门
selectNo透传 $select,如 hasUsers,hasSubDepartments,userCount,managers,email,isHidden,canManage

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the $root escape hatch but says nothing about error behavior for missing departments, permission dependencies implied by 'canManage', or what the '部门信息' payload contains. That is adequate but thin beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the primary lookup behavior and immediately followed by the one non-obvious special case. No filler or redundant wording.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read-only lookup this is close to sufficient, and the select enum hints at the available fields. With no output schema, however, the description does not explain what the returned department object looks like when 'select' is omitted, leaving a real gap for the calling agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema itself already documents both 'id' (including $root) and 'select', so the description largely restates structured data. It provides no extra meaning for 'select' (e.g. that omitted select yields a default field set), so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('根据部门 ID 获取部门信息') and adds the $root special case, so an agent knows it fetches exactly one department by ID. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings such as get_department_chain, get_department_tree, or get_departments_by_ids, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the ID-based fetch and the $root token, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions (e.g. 'use get_department_tree to fetch hierarchy'), and no note on what happens for an invalid or unknown ID. The agent must infer the routing decision from sibling names alone.

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