get_orgGet one organization by id, including its members, plan, and billing summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgId | Yes | Organization id (uuid). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| plan | Yes | ||
| myRole | No | ||
| billing | Yes | ||
| members | No | ||
| ownerId | Yes | ||
| personal | No | ||
| ownerEmail | No | ||
| defaultProjectId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's non-mutating behavior is consistent and doesn't need restating. The description adds useful context: it returns members, plan, and billing summary, which clarifies the scope of data. It doesn't explicitly state that billing summary might be sensitive or that it returns a 404 if not found, but the annotations cover the key safety trait and the output schema likely details return values.
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?
One clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, and the included data without redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the simple single-parameter input, read-only annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It names the included data (members, plan, billing summary), which gives the agent a good sense of what it will receive. It omits explicit error behavior, but for a read-only lookup with a well-schematized parameter this is a minor gap.
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 parameter orgId is well documented as 'Organization id (uuid).' The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, such as where to find orgId or what constitutes a valid org. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full parameter explanation.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one organization by id'), and lists the key included data ('members, plan, and billing summary'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_orgs (which lists organizations) and create_org/update_org (which mutate organizations).
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 clearly states the tool gets a single org by id, implying the user must know the org ID. It distinguishes from list_orgs implicitly by focusing on one org and its details, but it does not explicitly say 'use list_orgs to find orgs' or state when not to use this tool. Context is clear, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions clearly explain boundaries. However, list_diagrams/list_documents and get_board/get_board_image are two pairs that both concern the same underlying resource, so an agent could initially select the wrong one without reading carefully.
Nearly all tool names are snake_case verb_noun pairs such as create_project, update_document, and unpublish_listing, which is very consistent. The exceptions are bare 'draw' and the non-pattern 'whoami', so it is not a perfect 5.
With 38 tools, the surface exceeds the 25+ threshold and spans orgs, projects, documents, board drawing, membership, and marketplace publishing. While each subdomain is individually reasonable, the aggregate is heavy and likely to overwhelm an agent; several related actions could be grouped or exposed more sparingly.
The set covers the main lifecycle: org/project/document CRUD, board rendering and editing, member management, and template publish/use/update. Minor gaps remain—there is no get_project single-resource read, and groups/links/notes are manipulated only through the generic update_board rather than dedicated tools—but these are workable.