openstack-mcp

list_security_groups

Read-only

List security groups and their rule counts to quickly assess firewall configurations in OpenStack.

Instructions

List security groups and how many rules each contains.

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_security_groups"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 22, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which already convey that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the detail about rule counts, which is a small behavioral context, but it doesn't disclose potential rate limits, whether it returns all groups at once, or if it supports pagination. Given the annotations, the description partially complements them but does not go beyond basic expectations.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that communicates the core purpose without excess. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The tool has an output schema, but the description does not explain the return structure beyond rule counts. Given the simple parameter set and read-only nature, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on pagination or ordering that could be important. It is complete enough for a basic list operation but not exemplary.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for the parameter 'limit', but it does not mention it at all. The description ignores the limit parameter, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use it (e.g., whether it's for pagination or limiting results). This is a significant gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool lists security groups and includes the count of rules each contains, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_networks or list_servers. However, it does not explicitly mention the scope (e.g., project-wide or all groups) that could further differentiate it.

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?

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_server for detailed info or list_keypairs. It lacks any mention of filtering, pagination, or context-specific usage, leaving the agent to infer when it's appropriate.

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

Deploy Server