Lists the practice groups you can send a secure portal message to, returning their group IDs for sending and suggested subjects. Use it to find valid recipients before composing a message; it changes nothing.
List who you can send a secure message to (the practice groups, with the group id insync_send_message takes) and the practice’s suggested subjects. Changes nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is mostly covered. The phrase "Changes nothing" reinforces that, and the description adds that it returns practice groups and suggested subjects, but it does not cover pagination, response shape, or other operational details.
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?
The description is two concise clauses with the purpose and key return content front-loaded, followed by a short safety confirmation. No sentence is wasted.
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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: it says what is listed and how the result relates to insync_send_message. It could say more about the response structure, but the key call decision is supported.
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 has zero input parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The description appropriately focuses on what the no-argument call returns rather than inventing input guidance.
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 and resource: list message recipients, clarified as practice groups and suggested subjects. It distinguishes itself from the sibling send tool by explaining that the returned group id is what insync_send_message takes.
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?
It clearly implies the tool is used to discover valid send targets before calling insync_send_message by explicitly linking the returned group id to that sibling. It does not give explicit exclusions or describe other alternatives, but the primary usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.