checkly_list_check_groupsList all check groups (shared config for a set of checks). Public API: GET /v1/check-groups.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | Filter by a tag. | |
| name | No | Filter by group name. | |
| page | No | 1-based page number. | |
| limit | No | Page size. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates the tool is safe. The description adds only the HTTP endpoint, which is not behavioral context. No mention of rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior.
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?
Very concise at two sentences. No redundant information. The purpose and API endpoint are front-loaded. Could be slightly more informative but no wasted words.
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?
No output schema, and the description omits key context like pagination (despite page/limit parameters), response format, or typical usage patterns. For a list tool with pagination, more completeness is expected.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are adequately documented in the schema. The description does not add extra context such as parameter interactions or formatting details. 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 verb 'List' and resource 'check groups' with a brief explanation ('shared config for a set of checks'). While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools, the action is unambiguous.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., checkly_get_check_group for a single group). No information about prerequisites, recommended filtering strategies, or typical use cases.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources (checks, groups, results, statuses, etc.). However, `checkly_get_check_alerts` vs `checkly_list_check_alerts` could be confused, though descriptions help clarify per-check vs account-level.
All tools follow a consistent `checkly_verb_noun` pattern, using `get`, `list`, and `create` appropriately. No mixing of styles.
22 tools cover a broad monitoring domain reasonably well, but a few resource types (e.g., dashboards, snippets, runtimes) with only list operations may be underutilized.
The tool set is heavily read-only; only maintenance windows and variables have create operations. Missing create/update/delete for checks, groups, alert channels, and other core resources, limiting agent ability to manage the account.