List time spec groups configured in NetBox to inspect scheduling definitions used for access-control policies.
Lists time spec groups configured on the NetBox system (wraps NBAPI GetTimeSpecGroups).
| 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?
The description discloses it wraps NBAPI GetTimeSpecGroups and states the list scope, but does not mention pagination behavior, result shape, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries some burden, but for a read-only list operation this is minimally adequate.
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 one concise sentence with the key action front-loaded. The parenthetical wrapper context is relevant and does not add unnecessary clutter.
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?
Given the low complexity, one optional parameter fully documented in the schema, and no output schema, the description covers the main invocation context. It does not explicitly elaborate on return format, but 'Lists' plus the parameter description is likely sufficient for correct use.
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 schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for STARTFROMKEY, so the description does not need to compensate. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses a specific verb 'Lists' with a clear resource 'time spec groups' and a scoping phrase 'configured on the NetBox system'. The plural form also distinguishes it from sibling get_time_spec_group, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 is provided and no alternatives are mentioned, even though siblings like get_time_spec_group and get_time_specs exist. The agent must infer the appropriate selection solely from the tool name and basic description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.