Query VCF Automation groups with pagination, FIQL filtering, and sorting to review or manage access groups.
Get a list of groups. GET /cloudapi/1.0.0/groups
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | Page to fetch, zero offset. | |
| filter | No | Filter for a query. FIQL format. | |
| sortAsc | No | Field to use for ascending sort | |
| pageSize | Yes | Results per page to fetch. | |
| sortDesc | No | Field to use for descending sort |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context such as pagination requirements, what a page contains, or the scope of groups returned.
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 lines with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The raw endpoint line largely duplicates the annotation title and earns little, but nothing is bloated.
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 paginated list tool with two required parameters and many overlapping group siblings, the description gives no indication of result shape, total counts, or which group domain is returned. Annotations and schema carry the safety and parameter story, but disambiguation—the main remaining burden—is absent.
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 coverage is 100%, so page, pageSize, filter (FIQL), sortAsc, and sortDesc are all documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so baseline 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?
Specific verb (get/list) plus resource (groups), so the agent knows this is a read-only list operation. However it does not differentiate from the many group-related siblings (provider_get_group, identity_get_organization_groups, identity_search_groups, provider_search_ldap_groups), leaving ambiguity about which 'groups' source is queried.
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 guidance on when to use this versus provider_get_group (single group by id) or the search/org variants. The only extra text is the raw REST path, which is not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.