Retrieve all groups from the ElevenLabs API. Use for listing and managing group resources.
Get All Groups
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_groups_endpoint"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully carried by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral (no pagination, no auth scope, no return shape), but with annotations covering the read/idempotent/foreign-world traits, a repository-covered baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
It is two words, so there is no structural bloat. It is front-loaded and free of filler, though the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than exemplary conciseness, which keeps it out of the top score.
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, no annotations burden, but the description is so thin that an agent gets no sense of what a 'group' is, whether the list is scoped to a workspace, or how it relates to search_groups. For a listing tool in a large sibling set, it should do more.
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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case for this dimension. Nothing about parameters needs explaining, so the description cannot be faulted here.
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 'Get All Groups' is a tautology that largely restates the tool name get_groups_endpoint (which already encodes the get_groups action). It names no specific resource semantics beyond 'groups', and gives no hint of scope (which groups endpoint, what a group is) that would distinguish it from sibling listers like get_agents_route.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The sibling search_groups is the obvious alternative for lookup by criteria, yet the description never mentions it or any condition choosing between listing all groups and searching them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.