list_appointment_group_groupsList student groups that have reserved a slot in an appointment group (when participant_type=Group).
List student groups that have reserved a slot in an appointment group (when participant_type=Group).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appointment_group_id | Yes | The appointment group ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.18.15Input schema / properties / appointment_group_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / appointment_group_id / typeRemoved value: -"number"v1.18.11Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.18.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the participant_type scoping context, but says nothing about return shape, ordering, or pagination for the listed 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?
One tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. Nothing is wasted, though it is minimal to the point of omitting useful routing detail.
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 single-parameter read-only list tool with safety annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential scope constraint. It is adequate, with only minor gaps around return format and the sibling it complements.
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% with a single documented appointment_group_id parameter, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no format, type, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema already provides.
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 ('List') and resource ('student groups that have reserved a slot in an appointment group'), which clearly distinguishes it from the user-oriented sibling list_appointment_group_users. The parenthetical participant_type=Group scoping makes the resource boundary explicit, though no sibling is named directly.
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 condition '(when participant_type=Group)' implies when this tool applies versus a user-based alternative, but it never names that alternative or states exclusions explicitly. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.