set_organizationSelect an organization by ID or name to set it as the active context for subsequent Favro actions.
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 the full burden, and it does clearly disclose the core behavioral effect: it sets an 'active organization'. However, it omits failure behavior for an unknown org, whether the change is session-scoped or persistent, and whether other active selections (e.g., board) are affected by the switch.
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 filler; the purpose leads and the detail follows. The second sentence is largely redundant with the schema, which slightly dilutes the efficiency but does not make the description bloated.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and with one well-documented parameter the mechanical information is adequate. For an unannotated state-mutation tool, however, the description should say more about side effects and scope of the switch than it does.
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 the single required parameter 'org' is already documented as 'Organization ID or name'. The description's second sentence ('specified by ID or name') restates the schema verbatim, adding no new resolution or formatting detail, so the baseline of 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 description states a specific verb and resource ('Select an organization as the active organization'), which is unambiguous about the state-changing nature of the call. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like get_current_organization or list_organizations, but the 'set active' framing makes the distinction inferable.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for switching the active organization, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of the read-only alternatives (get_current_organization, list_organizations) that would help disambiguate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.