Retrieve groups accessible to your device or user, showing group names, member counts, and device counts. These groups determine which projects you can access.
List groups accessible to this device/user. Shows group names, member counts, and device counts. Groups determine which projects you can access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the returned fields (names, member counts, device counts) and implies a read-only, scoped operation, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or permission requirements for enumerating groups.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the return contents, then the domain meaning. No filler or redundancy.
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 parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and why it matters. It could still note result size or ordering, but nothing essential for invocation is missing.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema is an empty object and the description correctly introduces no arguments.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List groups') and scopes it to those 'accessible to this device/user'. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling get_group_details, so differentiation is only partial.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the sentence 'Groups determine which projects you can access' hints at why an agent would enumerate groups, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives like get_group_details or list_projects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.