get_embedRetrieves a Circle community embed's data by sgid, optionally selecting a named private account for credentials.
Get Embed. Reads community data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sgid | Yes | The sgid of the embed | |
| account | No | Named private Circle account; selects credentials, not a remote community 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, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description's "Reads community data" adds nothing beyond that, not even which fields come back or whether the embed is public.
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?
Only two short sentences, so nothing is bloated and it is front-loaded, but the first sentence is pure duplication of the title and the second carries no information, leaving it under-specified rather than genuinely concise.
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 and no annotations explaining return behavior, yet the description never says what a fetched embed contains or what the sgid identifier refers to. For a two-parameter read tool, an agent has to guess at the result shape.
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%: sgid is documented in the schema and the account parameter's semantics (selects credentials, not a remote community ID) are unusually well explained in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 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?
"Get Embed" merely restates the tool name/title, and "Reads community data" is too vague to distinguish this from siblings like get_community, get_post, or get_space. Nothing identifies what an "embed" is or which resource is fetched.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. With ~120 siblings including create_embed and get_community, the agent gets no routing help at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.