Retrieve all AlertOps groups with their IDs and names. Use returned group IDs to query alerts, on-call schedules, and group schedules.
List all groups in the AlertOps account (group ID -> group name). Group IDs from this response are usable by alertops_list_alerts, alertops_get_oncall_now, and alertops_get_group_schedule.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output is a mapping of ID to name, which is a basic behavior, but it does not mention potential pagination, ordering, or any side effects (though for a read-only list tool these may not be relevant). The description is adequate but not rich; it neither contradicts annotations (none) nor adds significant behavioral detail.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable cross-tool context. It is efficiently structured and easily parseable by an agent.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states the return format and explicitly indicates how the results are used by other tools. It does not mention error conditions or limits, but for a simple list operation these are not critical. The description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret the response.
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 coverage is 100% (trivially). Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly implies a no-parameter call.
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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('all groups in the AlertOps account'), and the output format ('group ID -> group name'). It uniquely identifies the tool among siblings, which include list_alerts, list_users, list_topics, etc., by specifying groups.
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 does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives, but it provides practical guidance by noting that group IDs from this response are usable by three other tools (alertops_list_alerts, alertops_get_oncall_now, alertops_get_group_schedule). This implicitly tells the agent to call this tool when group IDs are needed for those operations. There is no competing group-list tool, so exclusion guidance is unnecessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.