get_organizationFetch a Calendly organization's details using its UUID to read organization data for administration, reporting, or integration tasks.
Get Organization. Reads Calendly data. Required scopes: organizations:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Named private Calendly account; selects credentials, not an organization URI. | |
| org_uuid | Yes | The organization's 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new information not present in annotations: the required OAuth scope 'organizations:read', which is useful for auth-aware agents.
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 fragments with zero wasted words and the resource stated first. 'Get Organization' duplicates the title, which is minor redundancy but not harmful.
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 simple single-resource read with full schema coverage and complete safety annotations, the definition covers purpose and auth scope adequately. It lacks any note on what the response contains, but with no output schema that is a minor gap.
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 100%, so both the org_uuid identifier and the account credential selector are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline expectation.
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?
States a clear verb+resource ('Get Organization'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not distinguish itself from similar retrieval siblings such as get_group or get_team, so it falls short of a 5.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_organization_membership or get_team, and no prerequisites beyond the scope note. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.