List access level groups configured on NetBox to review or manage permissions. Use an optional pagination cursor to continue from a previous call.
Lists access level groups configured on the NetBox system (wraps NBAPI GetAccessLevelGroups).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| STARTFROMKEY | No | Optional. Pagination cursor to continue listing from a previous call. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it lists groups and wraps an API, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify pagination behavior (though a pagination cursor parameter exists), rate limits, or whether the response is a list. It does not contradict annotations because none exist.
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 a single sentence that states the purpose and the underlying wrapper, with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the parenthetical is a useful implementation note.
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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the pagination hint. However, it could mention that the result is a paginated list and how to use the cursor, but this is partially implied. Given the simplicity, this is adequate but not rich.
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 only parameter, STARTFROMKEY, is fully described in the schema as an optional pagination cursor. The description adds minimal value beyond that, only implying pagination via the parameter name. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('access level groups configured on the NetBox system'), clearly indicating what the tool does. It also mentions it wraps an underlying API call. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_access_level_group' (singular) or 'get_access_levels' (plural), but the resource name is distinct enough.
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 implies it is for listing all access level groups, which is a typical use case. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_access_level_groups' (singular) or 'get_access_level_groups' (all groups), but the plural form and the phrase 'configured on the NetBox system' imply a system-wide listing. No exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.