Retrieve details for a single reader group by its unique READERGROUPKEY in S2 NetBox access-control systems, enabling MCP clients to inspect group configuration and permissions.
Returns the details of a single reader group for a given READERGROUPKEY (wraps NBAPI GetReaderGroup).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| READERGROUPKEY | Yes | Required. The unique READERGROUPKEY of the reader group to retrieve. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'wraps NBAPI GetReaderGroup' implementation note, which describes internals rather than behavior; it says nothing about error handling for a bogus key or what fields are returned.
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 with the key constraint and identity clear. The redundant parenthetical is the only wasted content.
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 single-param read tool this is nearly adequate, but it omits any return-shape hint (no output schema), error behavior for invalid keys, and the sibling routing an agent needs to distinguish it from get_reader_groups.
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 100% and the single parameter is documented there as required and unique. The description only echoes the parameter name, adding 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 reader group) with the identifying key, distinguishing it from the sibling get_reader_groups (plural). The parenthetical wrapper note adds no purpose but doesn't obscure it.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no explicit routing to get_reader_groups for listing or get_reader for the hardware itself. The singular/plural sibling distinction is only implied by the word 'single'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.