list_groups_with_costsList tool groups with their context-token costs so you can select only the group a task needs and avoid loading unnecessary tools.
List tool GROUPS with the context-token cost of loading each, so you can pick only the group a task needs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that each group is returned with its context-token cost, but it does not describe output format, ordering, or any other runtime behavior.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; it states the action, the resource, the key returned metric, and the reason to use it efficiently.
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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (groups plus per-group token cost) and why it matters. It could be slightly richer by naming the group identifier or how it pairs with call_tool/describe_tool, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.
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 ('List'), a precise resource ('tool GROUPS'), and a distinguishing attribute ('context-token cost of loading each'). It is clearly not a generic capability list, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_capabilities or search_capabilities by name.
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?
It gives an implied use case ('so you can pick only the group a task needs'), which tells the agent why to call it, but it does not state when to prefer it over list_capabilities or search_capabilities, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.