Retrieve learner groups with filtering, pagination, sorting, and include options by calling the GET /groups endpoint.
List learner groups. Calls GET /groups. Put route IDs in path_params and filtering, pagination, sorting, or include values in query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| path_params | No |
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method and parameter placement, but fails to mention behavior such as pagination defaults, read-only nature, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a non-trivial API call.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and endpoint. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.
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?
Given the output schema covers return values, the key missing piece is distinguishing this from `list_account_groups`. The description also omits common query parameter details (like limit/offset) that would be needed for correct invocation. It is technically usable but leaves gaps for an agent to risk errors.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that route IDs go in path_params and filtering, pagination, sorting, or include values go in query. This adds meaningful context to otherwise generic fields, though it does not enumerate possible query parameters or their semantics.
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 'List learner groups' and specifies the endpoint `GET /groups`, giving a clear verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling `list_account_groups`, which could be confused, so it lacks explicit distinction.
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 provides guidance on where to place parameters (path_params vs query), but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus other list tools, nor any exclusions or alternatives. It is purely operational, not decision-oriented.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.