get_group_summaryRetrieve a LINE group chat's summary, including group ID, group name, and icon URL, by passing the group ID.
Get the group chat summary including group ID, group name, and group icon URL, using the group ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| groupId | Yes | The group ID of the target group chat. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1-localDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read, and the description does not contradict it. Beyond that, it adds little behavioral context — no auth requirements, error cases, or whether the group must be one the bot is in. The disclosed return fields are useful but primarily response-shape information.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and the identifier needed, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.
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 names the fields returned (ID, name, icon URL), which an agent would otherwise not know. For a single-parameter read tool with a readOnlyHint, that covers most of what is needed, though call preconditions remain unstated.
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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'using the group ID' adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already states, 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?
Specific verb (Get) and resource (group chat summary), and it enumerates the returned fields (group ID, name, icon URL). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_profile or get_message_quota, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when another sibling tool would be a better choice. The usage is only implied by the tool name and the mention of 'using the group ID'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.