Lists access level groups configured on NetBox, with pagination support to fetch complete results across multiple calls.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions wrapping NBAPI GetAccessLevelGroups but does not describe pagination behavior, response format, partitioning implications, or any operational expectations such as whether this is a read-only operation.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the essential action and resource immediately, and the parenthetical NBAPI reference provides useful implementation context without bloat.
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 listing tool, the description is minimally adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around pagination and how to continue listings using STARTFROMKEY. The schema documents the parameters, so this is not severely incomplete, but an agent would benefit from more invocation context.
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%, with both PARTITIONKEY and STARTFROMKEY already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the NBAPI wrapper reference, so the baseline score 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?
The description states a clear verb ('Lists') and a clear resource ('access level groups configured on the NetBox system'), and the plural 'groups' distinguishes it from the singular sibling get_access_level_group. It is specific enough, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from related tools.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the singular get_access_level_group or get_access_levels. It only states what the tool does, so an agent must infer usage context from the name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.