Skip to main content
Glama

superops_technicians_groups

List technician groups or teams in SuperOps.ai to retrieve each group's ID and name, then use that ID to identify a technician's group membership.

Instructions

List technician groups/teams in SuperOps.ai. Returns every group's ID and name — SuperOps exposes no description, member count or member roster for a group, and the endpoint is neither paginated nor filterable. These are the same groups that appear in a technician's groups field, so a group ID from here identifies the group a technician belongs to.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.2
    • removedInput schema / properties / max
      Removed value: -{
      -  "default": 50,
      -  "description": "Maximum number of results (default: 50)",
      -  "type": "number"
      -}
  2. Addedv1.6.3
  3. Removedv1.6.0
  4. First observedv1.2.5

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so unusually well: it discloses the exact return shape (ID and name only), that no description/member count/roster is exposed, and that the endpoint is neither paginated nor filterable. These are precisely the behavioral traits an agent needs and cannot infer elsewhere.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the return shape and limitations, then the relationship to the technician groups field. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating exactly what is returned (ID and name) and what is not available. For a zero-parameter, unpaginated read tool, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters (0 params, schema coverage 100%), so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing to document and the description correctly adds no parameter detail.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (List) and resource (technician groups/teams in SuperOps.ai), and the resource is clearly distinct from siblings like superops_technicians_list and superops_technicians_get. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains the practical use case: these groups match the groups field on a technician, so a group ID from here identifies a technician's group. That is clear contextual guidance, though it stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when NOT to call it.

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