Retrieve details for a single S2 NetBox access level group by its unique ACCESSLEVELGROUPKEY. Use it to inspect permissions and group configuration in physical access-control systems.
Returns the details of a single access level group for a given ACCESSLEVELGROUPKEY (wraps NBAPI GetAccessLevelGroup).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ACCESSLEVELGROUPKEY | Yes | Required. The unique ACCESSLEVELGROUPKEY of the access level group to retrieve. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds only that it wraps NBAPI GetAccessLevelGroup, with no disclosure of not-found/error behavior, auth requirements, or what 'details' concretely includes. Since annotations carry the safety profile, a 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?
One front-loaded sentence naming the verb, resource, and key parameter. The parenthetical NBAPI provenance note is minor padding but arguably useful for tracing the underlying API.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should ideally sketch the returned shape, but 'the details' stays vague. For a trivial single-parameter getter with full schema coverage and a read-only annotation, it is minimally adequate rather than complete.
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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description names ACCESSLEVELGROUPKEY but adds no format, casing, or sourcing guidance beyond the 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 (Returns) and resource (details of a single access level group) keyed by ACCESSLEVELGROUPKEY. The word 'single' implicitly contrasts with the plural sibling get_access_level_groups, though the sibling is never named 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?
Usage is only implied: 'a single access level group' vs the plural sibling suggests this is the one-at-a-time lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. The agent must infer the routing from the noun number.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.