Skip to main content
Glama

getGroups

Retrieve all user groups or lists with a customizable limit for better organization and access to contacts across platforms like email, social media, and messaging apps.

Instructions

Get all groups or lists for the user.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoThe maximum number of groups to return.

Implementation Reference

  • Handler/execute function for the getGroups tool, which proxies the call to the external /get-groups endpoint using the callTool helper.
    execute: async (params) => callTool("/get-groups", params),
  • Input schema for getGroups tool using Zod, defining optional 'limit' parameter.
    parameters: z.object({
      limit: z
        .number()
        .describe("The maximum number of groups to return.")
        .optional(),
    }),
  • index.js:253-263 (registration)
    Registration of the getGroups MCP tool via FastMCP server.addTool.
    server.addTool({
      name: "getGroups",
      description: "Get all groups or lists for the user.",
      parameters: z.object({
        limit: z
          .number()
          .describe("The maximum number of groups to return.")
          .optional(),
      }),
      execute: async (params) => callTool("/get-groups", params),
    });
  • Helper function used by getGroups (and other tools) to proxy requests to the external Clay API at nexum.clay.earth.
    async function callTool(path, params, session) {
      console.log('Calling tool', path, session)
      return fetch(`https://nexum.clay.earth/tools${path}`, {
        body: JSON.stringify(params),
        headers: {
          Authorization: `ApiKey ${session.apiKey}`,
          "Content-Type": "application/json",
        },
        method: "POST",
      }).then((res) => res.text());
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data, implying it's read-only, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the 'limit' parameter), or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. This exemplifies good conciseness in tool descriptions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what 'groups or lists' entail, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like side effects. For a retrieval tool with no structured support, more context is needed to guide the agent adequately.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'limit' parameter clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as default values or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('all groups or lists for the user'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'createGroup' or 'updateGroup' by focusing on retrieval rather than modification. However, it doesn't specify whether this returns personal groups, shared groups, or both, which could be more precise.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'searchContacts' or 'aggregateContacts' that might be relevant for group-related queries, nor does it specify prerequisites such as authentication or context. This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/clay-inc/clay-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server