List all Vee3 capability groups.
Use this to see how tools are organized (for example website-screenshots or meta-tools) before listing tools in a specific group
Cost = 0 tokens.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| groups | No | Capability groups with live tool counts. | |
| message | No | How the user can enable and disable capability groups from Customize MCP in the dashboard. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / messageAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "How the user can enable and disable capability groups from Customize MCP in the dashboard.",
+ "title": "Message"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the cost profile ('Cost = 0 tokens') and the fact that this is a lightweight organizational read operation. Since the tool takes no parameters and returns group information, this is sufficient, though it could mention that no side effects occur.
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 three short lines with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage context and cost information. 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?
For a zero-parameter, output-schema-bearing tool, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns conceptually, when to use it, and the cost implication, which is all an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the argument surface. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all Vee3 capability groups.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from related listing tools by framing it as an organizational overview rather than a tool-level listing.
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 states when to use it: 'Use this to see how tools are organized... before listing tools in a specific group.' This gives the agent actionable guidance and implicitly differentiates it from list_group_tools and list_all.
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.