List FreeIPA groups by optional name substring and result limit. Returns group name, description, GID, and member lists.
List groups in FreeIPA. Returns name, description, GID, and member lists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cn | No | Filter by group name — substring match | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of groups to return (default 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does indicate a read-only list operation via 'List' and 'Returns' and specifies the returned fields. However, it does not disclose sorting, pagination, result-set scope, or what 'member lists' means in practice.
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 short sentences, both purposeful: one states the action and scope, the other states the output shape. There is no filler, repetition of schema data, or unnecessary detail.
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 simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return fields while the schema covers the parameters. It lacks usage guidance and behavioral caveats, but an agent can invoke the tool correctly with the information provided.
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 100%, and both parameters (cn and limit) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('groups in FreeIPA') and adds exact return fields (name, description, GID, and member lists), so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_group, but the plural 'List groups' clearly signals a collection-level operation.
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 no guidance about when to use list_groups versus get_group, list_users, or the other list tools. It relies entirely on the tool name and sibling names to imply usage, with no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.