get_access_group_community_memberShow a community member's details for a specific access group by email and access group ID. Reads community data to verify membership.
Show Access Group Community Member. Reads community data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| account | No | Named private Circle account; selects credentials, not a remote community ID. | |
| access_group_id | Yes | Access Group ID |
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 fully covered by structured data. The description's only behavioral claim, 'Reads community data', merely duplicates readOnlyHint and adds nothing about what is fetched or what authorization context is required.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no padding, so it is not verbose. However the second sentence does not earn its place because it carries no information beyond what the annotations and title already convey.
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 should at least indicate what a member record returns or how access_group_id plus email identify it, and it says nothing. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the retrieval semantics remain unexplained for a three-parameter, two-required lookup.
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%, with all three parameters documented (including the useful 'account' note about named private Circle accounts). That establishes the baseline of 3, and the description contributes no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema.
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 is essentially the title with a trailing clause: 'Show Access Group Community Member. Reads community data.' It restates the name rather than stating a distinct verb+resource outcome. It also fails to differentiate from close siblings such as get_member, list_access_group_community_members, and add_to_access_group.
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 guidance on when to use this instead of get_member or list_access_group_community_members, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only hint of usage is the vague word 'Reads', which implies retrieval but selects nothing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.