get_group_relationshipRetrieve a Calendly group relationship by UUID to read group details and membership data. Requires groups:read scope.
Get Group Relationship. Reads Calendly data. Required scopes: groups:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Named private Calendly account; selects credentials, not an organization URI. | |
| relationship_uuid | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact the annotations lack: the required 'groups:read' scope. That earns a modest score, but nothing about failure modes, missing-resource behavior, or return shape is disclosed.
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 sentences with no filler and the scope note front-loaded after the name. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should help convey what a 'group relationship' is and what comes back; it does not. Combined with the undocumented required UUID parameter and no usage guidance, an agent has little beyond the name to work with.
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 description coverage is only 50%: the 'account' parameter is documented in the schema, but 'relationship_uuid' has no description anywhere. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on the required UUID.
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 repeats the tool title verbatim ('Get Group Relationship') and adds only the generic phrase 'Reads Calendly data.' It does not specify what a group relationship is, what resource is retrieved, or how it differs from the sibling list_group_relationships.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative sibling list_group_relationships for enumeration. The only contextual hint is the scope requirement, which is auth-related rather than usage-routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.