List ring groups to view which extensions ring together on incoming calls, enabling quick review of call-routing configurations.
List ring groups (a set of extensions that ring together on an incoming call).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-based). Defaults to 1. | |
| page_size | No | Items per page. Defaults to the PBX's own default page size. |
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this is a safe read-only operation, whether pagination affects the result set completeness, what the return format looks like, or whether there are any system limits. For a list operation with no annotation safety profile, this is a notable gap.
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 that defines the resource in a parenthetical. No wasted words; the definition of 'ring groups' is genuinely helpful for an agent unfamiliar with telephony terminology.
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 tool with two optional parameters fully documented in the schema and no output schema expected, the description is mostly adequate. However, the absence of any behavioral context (read-only hint, pagination implications, return format) leaves minor gaps that an agent might need filled, especially given there are no annotations to compensate.
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 the schema already documents both parameters (page and page_size) with clear descriptions. The description adds nothing about parameter usage beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
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 clear verb and resource ('List ring groups') and adds a useful parenthetical defining what a ring group is. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling yeastar_get_ring_group (list vs. get single), though the 'list' verb implicitly signals plural collection.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that yeastar_get_ring_group retrieves a single ring group, nor does it explain when listing would be preferred over retrieving. The context of when to list vs. get a specific group is left entirely to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.