List custom groups to review how DLP policies are organized and assigned in CloudSOC.
[READ] List custom 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": "clouddlp_custom_groups"
}
}| 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?
The '[READ]' tag merely restates readOnlyHint=true from the annotations, adding no new information. Nothing is said about whether the list is paginated, complete, ordered, or what fields each group carries, which are the traits an agent would actually benefit from knowing.
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?
Two words, front-loaded with the operation type and the resource, with zero waste. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, but conciseness itself is strong.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, the description covers the minimum. However, an agent still cannot tell what a returned 'custom group' contains or how this list relates to sibling resources, which a single added clause could fix.
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, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents or contradicts the empty schema.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('custom groups'), which is distinguishable from the singular sibling clouddlp_custom_group that presumably retrieves one group. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with that sibling, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus clouddlp_custom_group or the profile/incident siblings. The only implicit signal is the plural resource name, leaving the agent to infer that this is the enumeration variant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.