data_list_department_groupsReturn the list of department groups, used to organize product categories. Each group may include multiple department IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Response format: 'json' (default), 'csv', or 'html' | json |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with the annotation 'readOnlyHint: true', indicating a safe read operation. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what the annotation already implies, such as response structure, pagination, or ordering.
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 with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately provides context about the resource. Every sentence serves a purpose.
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 list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It explains the resource's role and indicates the return type (list). Minor omission: no mention of whether the list is sorted or paginated, but not critical for this tool.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'format' is fully documented with enum values and default. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 action ('Return the list') and the resource ('department groups'), and explains their purpose ('used to organize product categories'). It also provides a distinguishing detail ('Each group may include multiple department IDs'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'data_list_departments'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'data_list_departments' or other listing tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct entity or action (account, client, order, product, payment, VAT, etc.), with clear naming like 'account_create' vs 'account_edit' and 'data_list_' prefixed listings. No overlapping purposes detected.
All tool names use snake_case and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., account_create, client_add, data_list_clients). Even compound names like auth_login_with_otp adhere to this structure.
41 tools is high but justified by the wide scope of a POS/accounting system (accounts, clients, orders, products, payments, VAT, reports). Slightly above the typical range but well-scoped.
The tool surface covers CRUD for all major entities (clients, departments, products, VAT, payment modes, orders), plus queries, reports, and authentication. No obvious gaps for a small business management server.