List reader groups configured on a NetBox access-control system via NBAPI. Retrieve group details to manage or monitor access-control configurations.
Lists reader groups configured on the NetBox system (wraps NBAPI GetReaderGroups).
| 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 must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Lists...' which implies read-only, but does not explicitly state safety, pagination behavior, permissions, or side effects. The pagination cursor is mentioned only in the schema, not the description, leaving the agent without important behavioral context.
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 front-loads the main action. The parenthetical about wrapping NBAPI adds some implementation detail that may not be essential for an agent, but it does not bloat the description. Overall concise and well-structured.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and only one optional parameter, the description still leaves gaps: it does not indicate what the response contains, whether pagination is required for large lists, or how this tool relates to the singular get_reader_group. The description is too minimal to be fully complete for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.
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%: the sole parameter STARTFROMKEY has a clear description ('Optional. Pagination cursor to continue listing from a previous call.'). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, 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 clearly states the action ('Lists'), the resource ('reader groups'), and the system ('NetBox'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_reader_group (singular) by the plural form, and the parenthetical identifies the underlying API. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.
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 usage through the plural 'reader groups' (listing all) but does not explicitly state when to use this instead of get_reader_group or related tools. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.