get_space_group_memberRetrieve a Circle space group member by email and group ID. Reads community data to verify membership or view member details.
Show Space Group Member. Reads community data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Email of the user | ||
| account | No | Named private Circle account; selects credentials, not a remote community ID. | |
| space_group_id | Yes | ID of the space group |
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, non-destructive, and openWorld. The description's 'Reads community data' only re-states the read-only annotation and adds no new behavioral context such as auth requirements, what a missing member returns, or scope of the lookup.
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 short with no wasted clauses, but the brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficient communication; the two fragments carry almost no actionable information.
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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description should indicate what is returned (membership record? role?) and how the email/space_group_id pair is interpreted. Neither is addressed, leaving the agent with only the schema to work from.
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% and all three parameters are documented in the schema (email, account, space_group_id). The description contributes nothing beyond this, 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 merely restates the tool title ('Show Space Group Member'), and 'Reads community data' is a generic tagline that does not specify the resource being fetched or distinguish it from siblings like list_space_group_members, get_space_member, or get_space_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 tool versus list_space_group_members (which lists) or get_space_member (which fetches a space member by different keys). No prerequisites or context for selection are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.