Retrieve Duo account groups with ID, name, description, and status. Enables quick review of group membership and access structure for administrative oversight.
List groups in the Duo account (group_id, name, description, status).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of items per page (Duo default/max vary by endpoint). | |
| offset | No | Offset into the result set, for paging past the first page. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a non-mutating list operation and lists the fields returned, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or access requirements. This is adequate but leaves some behavioral context implicit.
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 a single efficient sentence with the core action, scope, and return fields in a parenthetical. No wasted words or redundant 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 simple list operation with only two optional pagination parameters, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the resource, scope, and output fields. It could note pagination behavior or contrast with the get-group sibling, but those are minor given the low complexity.
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 coverage is 100%, so limit and offset are already documented. The description adds nothing about how pagination interacts with the returned list, so it meets the baseline but provides no extra semantic value.
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') and resource ('groups in the Duo account') and enumerates the returned fields, making the scope clear. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like duo_get_group and duo_list_group_users without requiring schema inspection.
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 intended use is implied by the name and wording: call it when you need a paginated list of all Duo groups. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer it over duo_get_group or duo_list_group_users, nor does it give any exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.