SolidPing

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List check groups

list_check_groups

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all organization check groups to view grouped checks, their slugs, rolled-up status, and check counts for shared incident handling and dashboard organization.

Instructions

List all check groups for the organization. Check groups bundle related checks together for shared incident handling and dashboard organization, and each entry carries its slug, rolled-up status and check count. Takes no parameters and returns every group in one unpaginated response. Read-only: works with mcp:read tokens.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No	Check groups on this page.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.41.0Oct 23, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- addedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

Changed1 schema field changedv0.38.5Oct 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "Check groups on this page.",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "checkCount": {
+            "description": "Number of member checks.",
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "createdAt": {
+            "description": "RFC3339 creation timestamp.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "description": {
+            "description": "Free-text description, when set.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "escalationPolicyUid": {
+            "description": "Group-level escalation policy member checks inherit, when set.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "memberStatusCounts": {
+            "description": "Per-status count of enabled member checks, e.g. {\"up\": 3, \"down\": 1}.",
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "description": "Human-readable name.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "slug": {
+            "description": "URL-friendly slug.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "sortOrder": {
+            "description": "Display order among the org's groups.",
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "description": "Rollup of enabled member checks' statuses, recomputed on every read.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "uid": {
+            "description": "Check group UID.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "updatedAt": {
+            "description": "RFC3339 last-update timestamp.",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.32.1Sep 26, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds useful context beyond them: it returns every group in one unpaginated response and works with mcp:read tokens. It also notes the fields each entry carries, though it does not cover rate limits or failure modes.

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 front-loaded with the primary action and scope, then adds only useful details about group semantics, return shape, pagination, and auth. Every sentence contributes without repetition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs to call this tool correctly: scope, return behavior, auth requirements, and the fact that no input is required. No important context is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly states that it takes no parameters, which matches the empty input schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List all check groups for the organization') and clarifies what a check group is, including that it bundles related checks. This distinguishes it implicitly from check-level siblings like list_checks, but it does not explicitly name when another list tool would be preferred.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the concept: an agent can infer this is the tool for enumerating check groups. However, there is no explicit comparison to alternatives such as list_checks or list_check_types, and no guidance on when not to use it.

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