list_groupsList contact groups
List groups with member counts. Send to a group with send_sms to="group:".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Strona rekordów | |
| next_cursor | No | Kursor kolejnej strony |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Strona rekordów",
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "next_cursor": {
+ "description": "Kursor kolejnej strony",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by stating that returned groups include member counts and that groups are addressable as group:<name or id> when sending SMS. This integration detail is genuinely useful and not redundant with the annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded, but the opening line 'List contact groups' is slightly redundant with the following sentence and the tool name. Still, the substantive content—member counts and send_sms syntax—is concise and immediately visible.
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, read-only list tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the listing contains and how the results plug into send_sms, so an agent has everything needed to select and use the tool 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 the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to document, and the description correctly avoids inventing any. The group addressing format is the closest relevant semantic, and it is supplied.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('contact groups'), and adds a concrete output detail ('with member counts'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools such as list_contacts and list_messages, even without naming them explicitly.
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 send_sms cross-reference implies a workflow use case: discover group identifiers to use in group:... addressing. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer list_groups over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of sibling tools that serve different purposes.
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.