Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-server-wazuh

mcp-server-wazuh

by VitexSoftware
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

List Groups

list_groups
Read-onlyIdempotent

List Wazuh agent groups with limit and offset pagination to browse group assignments and support agent organization tasks.

Instructions

List agent groups.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_groups"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoPage size, from 1 to 100
offsetNoResult offset, from 0 to 10000

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that – no ordering, no pagination semantics beyond what the schema states, no note about the open-world scope hinted at by openWorldHint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, so it is not verbose. It is, however, under-specified rather than genuinely concise – the brevity comes from omission, not from editorial discipline.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Complexity is low: no required parameters, 100% schema coverage, an output schema that documents return values, and annotations that cover safety. Given all that structured support, a minimal description is defensible, but nothing explains the domain concept of an agent group or how this listing relates to list_agents.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (limit 1-100, offset 0-10000), so the schema already carries the full parameter meaning. The description contributes nothing extra, which is the baseline case for high-coverage schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"List agent groups." restates the tool name and title almost verbatim, adding only the qualifier "agent" to "groups." It does not say what a group is, what a listing contains, or how it differs from the sibling list_agents, so an agent gains nothing it could not infer from the name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_agents or get_agent. The agent must infer the selection criteria entirely from the tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools