Retrieve all OAuth clients with associated roles and divisions to audit and manage access in Genesys Cloud.
Retrieves a list of all OAuth clients, including their associated roles and divisions. This tool is useful for auditing and managing OAuth clients in the Genesys Cloud organization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description makes the read-only nature apparent through the verb 'Retrieves', and it discloses the scope ('all OAuth clients') and included associations. Since annotations do not provide readOnly/destructive hints, this description carries the burden adequately for a simple list operation, though pagination or rate-limit behavior is not addressed.
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?
Two compact sentences, with the core behavior front-loaded and a brief use-case sentence. No unnecessary filler or redundancy; every sentence contributes useful information.
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 list endpoint, the description covers what the tool does, what data it returns, and typical use cases. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly distinguishing it from oauth_client_usage, but nothing critical is missing 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, and the schema already reflects this fully with 100% coverage. The description appropriately adds context about what the result contains rather than explaining nonexistent parameters.
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 ('Retrieves') and a precise resource ('a list of all OAuth clients') with added detail about included roles and divisions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like oauth_client_usage, which likely focuses on usage metrics rather than client listings.
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 statement 'useful for auditing and managing OAuth clients' provides a clear context for when this tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it directly to the sibling oauth_client_usage tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.