Lists access level groups configured in NetBox to review or manage physical access-control permissions.
Lists access level groups configured on the NetBox system (wraps NBAPI GetAccessLevelGroups).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| PARTITIONKEY | No | Optional. Per NBAPI GetAccessLevelGroups — only "0" is documented as allowed. | |
| STARTFROMKEY | No | Optional. Pagination cursor to continue listing from a previous call. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Input schema / properties / PARTITIONKEYAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional. Per NBAPI GetAccessLevelGroups — only \"0\" is documented as allowed.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds only an implementation note ('wraps NBAPI GetAccessLevelGroups'), which is not behavioral context — no return contents, pagination behavior, or scoping limits are described.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource is identified before the parenthetical implementation detail. Nothing could be trimmed without losing the core statement.
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?
For a simple read-only list endpoint with full parameter coverage and annotation-declared safety, the description is minimally sufficient. It is silent on what a returned group contains and how it relates to singular/related siblings, which would help an agent disambiguate in a very crowded tool set.
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 two optional parameters (PARTITIONKEY, STARTFROMKEY) are documented in the schema itself, including the odd constraint that only '0' is allowed. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 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?
States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (access level groups) on the NetBox system, so the agent immediately knows what it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast with the near-identical sibling get_access_level_group (singular) or get_access_level_names, leaving the plural/singular distinction to be inferred.
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 when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools despite several plausible siblings (get_access_level_group, get_access_level_names). The listing nature implies a read use case but nothing is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.