list_admin_groupsList admin groups with pagination, filtering, sorting, and ordering options to find specific groups quickly.
Get All
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| orderBy | No | ||
| perPage | No | ||
| queryFilter | No | ||
| orderDirection | No | ||
| paginationSeed | No | ||
| accept-language | No | ||
| orderByNullPosition | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.20.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and 'Get All' discloses nothing. It does not mention pagination behavior (despite pagination parameters existing), admin authorization requirements, read-only nature, or any side effects. The two-word description provides zero behavioral context.
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?
Two words is not conciseness but severe under-specification. The description fails to earn its place by adding any information beyond the name; it is a fragment rather than a useful, front-loaded definition.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the tool has 8 parameters, none documented, and no context about what an admin group is, how pagination works, or what queryFilter accepts. Even though no parameters are required, an agent cannot meaningfully decide whether or how to invoke this tool based on the description. The definition is fundamentally incomplete.
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 8 parameters, so the description must compensate for the schema's silence. It adds nothing about page, perPage, queryFilter, orderBy, paginationSeed, or accept-language semantics. All 8 parameters remain unexplained by both the schema and the description.
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 'Get All' is a tautology that merely restates the listing action from the name/title without specifying the resource. An agent reading the description alone cannot determine that this returns admin groups as opposed to users or households, which matters given the large sibling set (list_admin_users, list_admin_households). Only the tool's name and title carry the actual purpose.
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?
No usage guidance is provided whatsoever. The description does not state when to use this tool, what scenario it serves, or how it differs from the many sibling list tools. With over 170 siblings sharing the 'list_*' pattern, the absence of any differentiation or alternative routing is a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.