List check groups in your organization to see how checks are bundled for shared incident handling and dashboard organization.
List all check groups for the organization. Check groups bundle related checks together for shared incident handling and dashboard organization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.32.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all' conveys a read-only retrieval operation, and the domain explanation adds useful context. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or whether the response includes associated checks, which are relevant behavioral details for a listing tool with no output schema.
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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and scope, and the second defines the domain concept. Every word earns its place.
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 list tool, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the resource, scope, and purpose. It lacks explicit return-format or pagination details, but since there is no output schema and invocation is trivial, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.
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 parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because the description adds no parameter information, but none is needed for this parameterless tool.
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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the exact resource ('check groups'), and defines the scope ('for the organization'). It also explains what check groups are and how they relate to checks, which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_checks and list_check_types.
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 description gives clear context: use this tool to list all check groups for the organization. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the explanation that check groups bundle related checks implies when this tool is relevant versus listing individual checks. No misleading guidance is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.