List security issue groups aggregated by rule or package, using the same filters as findings, with status, issue type, repository, search, limit, and cursor pagination.
List security issue groups (same filters as findings; groups aggregate one rule/package).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| statuses | No | ||
| issue_types | No | ||
| repository_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that this is a read-only listing, that results are paginated via limit/cursor, what auth or scope is required, or what the group objects contain. For a 6-parameter list tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial 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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource and appending the one clarifying fact that matters (what a group is). Nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity is partly what leaves the other dimensions thin.
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?
With 6 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition leaves the agent guessing on filtering syntax, pagination, and result shape. The pointer to findings' filters is the only aid and it is insufficient on its own.
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 description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'Same filters as findings' is only a cross-reference to a sibling tool; it explains no parameter's format, allowed enum values (statuses, issue_types), or pagination semantics beyond what the raw schema already encodes.
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 gives a specific verb+resource ('List security issue groups') and adds a genuine conceptual distinction from findings: groups 'aggregate one rule/package.' That aggregation semantics is enough for an agent to tell groups apart from individual findings, though the sibling sourcery_list_findings is not named explicitly.
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 parenthetical 'same filters as findings' implies usage context and the aggregation note hints at when groups are preferable to findings, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the neighboring sourcery_get_group, sourcery_get_group_counts, or sourcery_bulk_update_groups alternatives. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.