Select an active organization by ID or name to manage projects, boards, and tasks within Favro.
Select an organization as the active organization.
The organization can be specified by ID or name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org | Yes | Organization ID or name |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.2v0.7.0v0.3.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / org / descriptionAdded value: +"Organization ID or name"v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action (select active organization) which implies a mutable state change, but it does not disclose what happens to previous state, persistency, permissions, or whether it affects subsequent calls. The information is minimal but non-contradictory; it at least indicates a state-changing operation.
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?
The description is extremely concise—two short sentences with no filler. The primary intent is front-loaded, and the parameter guidance is minimal but sufficient. Every word earns its place; it is appropriately scoped for a single-parameter setter.
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 setter with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter format. It does not mention side effects or administrative requirements, but given the low complexity and schema coverage, it is largely complete. The absence of such details is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.
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?
The schema already provides a description for the only parameter ('Organization ID or name'), and the tool description repeats the same information ('by ID or name'). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional semantic value beyond what is already documented. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'Select' and the resource 'an organization as the active organization'. It distinguishes from list/get organizations by intent (changing vs querying), but does not explicitly name siblings or contrast them. It is clear and specific enough for an agent to understand the core purpose.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_current_organization' or 'list_organizations'. It does not state preconditions, side effects, or exceptions. The intended use case is implied but not articulated, so an agent might call it without understanding the impact on other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.