get_groupRetrieve detailed information about a specific Calendly group by its unique identifier. Use this read tool to fetch group data when you need group details for scheduling or organization tasks.
Get Group. Reads Calendly data. Required scopes: groups:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Named private Calendly account; selects credentials, not an organization URI. | |
| group_uuid | Yes | Group unique identifier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete auth requirement (groups:read), which is genuine value beyond annotations, but says nothing about failure modes or what a fetched group contains.
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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being packed with useful information.
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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits any sense of what the returned group representation includes, but with a simple read operation that gap is tolerable.
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%, so account and group_uuid are fully documented in the schema itself. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
"Get Group. Reads Calendly data." largely restates the tool name and title rather than specifying what a group is or what is retrieved. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like list_groups or get_group_relationship, leaving the agent to infer the difference.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_groups for enumeration. The only usable signal is the required scope, which is a prerequisite rather than a selection criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.