List the access groups that have permission on a specified Brivo access point. Provide the access point ID to see which groups can access that door.
List the access groups with permission on an access point.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | No | Skip the first N results. Default: 0. | |
| pageSize | No | Max results to return. Default: 20. Max: 100. | |
| accessPointId | Yes | The Brivo access point id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of pagination behavior, result ordering, or whether an empty result means no groups or an invalid access point.
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 efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it errs toward under-specification rather than tight conciseness.
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 read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits pagination behavior and the relationship to the inverse permission-list sibling, which an agent would benefit from knowing.
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%, so accessPointId, offset, and pageSize are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, ID-source, or pagination detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('List') and resource ('access groups with permission on an access point'), which is distinguishable from the inverse sibling List_group_access_point_permissions. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the closely related List_group_access_point_permissions or Get_access_point. No prerequisites, no context about when this direction of lookup is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.