get_space_groupRetrieve details of a specific Circle space group by its ID. Reads community data to display group information.
Show Space Group. Reads community data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Named private Circle account; selects credentials, not a remote community ID. | |
| space_group_id | Yes | Space 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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that profile: it does not explain credential selection via the 'account' parameter, what constitutes a space group, or any auth/rate-limit behavior, making 'Reads community data' largely redundant with readOnlyHint.
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?
It is brief and front-loaded, but neither sentence earns its place: the first duplicates the title and the second duplicates the readOnly annotation. Shortness here is under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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 low-complexity, single-resource read with fully documented params and rich annotations, the schema and annotations carry most of the load, and no output schema exists to explain returns. Minimum viability is met, but the description contributes nothing about the fetched space group that would help an agent interpret or choose it.
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 parameters (account, space_group_id) are already documented in the schema, including that 'account' selects credentials rather than a remote ID. The description adds no parameter detail, 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?
The first sentence repeats the title verbatim ('Show Space Group'), and the second ('Reads community data') is a vague domain restatement rather than a specific outcome. It does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like get_space_group_member, list_space_groups, or get_space, so an agent learns little beyond the name.
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 statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_space_groups or get_space_group_member. Only a faint implication of read usage exists via 'Reads community data'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.