get_context

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

While the readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as safe, the description goes beyond it by explaining the practical consequence of read-scoped access: it cannot deploy and requires reauthentication. This gives the agent useful behavioral context that the annotation alone does not provide.

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?

The description is compact: three sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives a direct usage instruction, and the third explains the access limitation and required remediation.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully equips the agent: it names what is returned, when to call it, and the consequence of read access. No additional context is necessary for correct invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema has full coverage, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The description appropriately focuses on the return values instead, listing org, role, and access, which is the relevant semantic information here.

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, 'Return', and names the exact resource: the org, role, and access scoped to the current MCP credential. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like login, logout, and info by focusing on credential context rather than authentication or generic information.

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 instructs the agent to use this once at the start of a session to know which org it is acting in. It also provides a key exclusion: a read connection cannot deploy, and the user must log in again with write access, helping the agent decide when to call login instead.

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