list-groups-toolFind groups in the current ClearPolicy organization. Use this when an MCP client does not support resources or when the user asks to browse groups.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Filter groups by name (partial match, case-insensitive). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| groups | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / groups / items / properties / app_urlAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / groups / items / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "name",
- "automatic_request_issuance_enabled",
- "active_people_count",
- "compliant_people_count",
- "documents_count",
- "resource_uri",
- "members_resource_uri",
- "documents_resource_uri"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "automatic_request_issuance_enabled",
+ "active_people_count",
+ "compliant_people_count",
+ "documents_count",
+ "resource_uri",
+ "app_url",
+ "members_resource_uri",
+ "documents_resource_uri"
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "groups": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "active_people_count": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "automatic_request_issuance_enabled": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "compliant_people_count": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "description": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "documents_count": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "documents_resource_uri": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "members_resource_uri": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "resource_uri": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "source": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "source_id": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "automatic_request_issuance_enabled",
+ "active_people_count",
+ "compliant_people_count",
+ "documents_count",
+ "resource_uri",
+ "members_resource_uri",
+ "documents_resource_uri"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "groups"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds no further behavioral context such as rate limits, authentication, or result format. With annotations covering safety, the description meets minimum expectations.
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 two sentences long (22 words), front-loads the core action ('Find groups'), and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence 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 tool is a simple read-only list with one optional filter, and an output schema exists (not shown but noted), the description is largely sufficient. It could mention that the result is a list of groups and any pagination, but the current text is adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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 input schema already fully describes the single optional parameter 'name' with its filtering behavior (partial match, case-insensitive). The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameter, achieving the baseline for 100% schema coverage.
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 what the tool does ('Find groups in the current ClearPolicy organization') and provides specific usage scenarios ('when an MCP client does not support resources or when the user asks to browse groups'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-group-tool.
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 explicitly specifies when to use the tool ('when an MCP client does not support resources') and gives a user-driven reason ('or when the user asks to browse groups'). It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the provided context is helpful for selection.
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.