Get available resource groups for a project.
Args: project_key: Project key (tenant ID). Uses global tenant_id if not provided
Returns: JSON string with resource groups result
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that project_key defaults to the global tenant_id and that the return is a JSON string, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe error behavior, leaving some transparency gaps.
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 short and front-loaded, starting with a clear one-sentence purpose before detailing parameters and return. The structured Args/Returns format is efficient, and every sentence provides unique information without repetition.
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 getter with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the input semantics and return format sufficiently. It could mention what a resource group is or potential edge cases, but given the presence of an output schema, the main gaps are minor. Overall it is reasonably complete.
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 schema provides only the parameter name and default, with no description. The description's Args section adds critical meaning by explaining that project_key is a tenant ID and that if omitted, the global tenant_id is used. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description, though it could be more detailed on format or constraints.
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 ('Get available resource groups') and the target ('for a project'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_projects or get_schema by focusing on resource groups. This is a clear and unambiguous purpose.
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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools. The only context is that it retrieves resource groups for a project, but no usage conditions are stated.
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.
The tools are organized into clear domains (auth, roles, schemas, translations, projects), and within each domain, tools have distinct purposes (e.g., get_schema vs list_schemas, save_captcha_config vs update_captcha_status). A few pairs like get_auth_status and get_authentication_config could cause minor confusion, but their descriptions clarify the difference.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, using predictable verbs like get, list, create, update, set, enable, and configure. Even longer names like save_module_keys_with_translations adhere to the same convention, with no mixed casing or arbitrary styles.
With 36 tools, the server exceeds the typical well-scoped range for MCP servers. While the broad platform domain justifies some breadth, the sheer volume can overwhelm agents and suggests the toolset could be consolidated or split into smaller, focused servers.
The toolset provides decent coverage for creation, listing, and some updates across entities like permissions, roles, schemas, and translations. However, there are notable gaps: no delete operations for most resources, no role update, and no project update/delete, which leaves lifecycle management incomplete.
