@zients/line-mcp-server

Get Group Summary

get_group_summary

Retrieve a LINE group's name and profile picture URL. Requires the bot to be a member of the group. Use to fetch group details by group ID.

Instructions

Get a LINE group's name and picture URL. The bot must be a member of the group.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "groupId": "<groupId>"
    },
    "name": "get_group_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`groupId`	Yes	LINE Group ID (starts with "C")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Sep 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the read-only nature (a 'get' of name and picture URL) and the membership precondition, which is valuable context. However, it omits failure behavior (what occurs when the bot is not a member) and the exact response format, leaving some transparency gaps for a read operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The core action and returned fields are front-loaded, followed by the one critical prerequisite. Nothing extraneous.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Complete for a simple 1-parameter getter with full schema coverage and no output schema: purpose, returned data, and the key constraint are all present. Minor gap is the absence of error behavior, which is acceptable for a straightforward read tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of groupId ('LINE Group ID (starts with C)'), so the schema already fully documents the parameter. The description adds only the membership constraint, not additional parameter syntax or format details, matching the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a LINE group's name and picture URL'), clearly identifying what data is returned. This distinguishes it from sibling member tools like get_group_member_count and get_group_member_profile, and from the message-sending tools, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a useful prerequisite ('The bot must be a member of the group') but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_group_member_count, get_group_member_profile, get_user_profile, or get_bot_info. No when/when-not routing is offered.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server