Retrieve an inventory of visible Azure Management Groups for governance auditing. Use it to review hierarchy and access scope across tenants.
Retorna inventário de Management Groups visíveis para auditoria de governança.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description's burden is lower. It adds the scoping qualifier 'visíveis' (visible) which hints at permission-based filtering, but doesn't describe pagination behavior, the limit's effect, or the return shape. Modest added value over annotations.
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?
A single efficient sentence with no waste. Front-loaded with the action and resource, though it could be more information-dense given the description's brevity leaves gaps elsewhere.
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 tool with no output schema, an undocumented pagination parameter, and many inventory-like siblings, the description is too thin. It should at least clarify what 'inventory' contains and how it differs from adjacent summary/count tools.
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% for the single 'limit' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does not mention 'limit' or its default of 50 at all. Baseline of 3 is generous given the gap, but with only one self-evident pagination parameter the damage is limited.
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 states a clear verb+resource (retorna inventário de Management Groups) and adds a purpose qualifier ('visíveis para auditoria de governança'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_environment_summary or list_resource_groups, leaving ambiguity about its distinct scope.
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 mentions an audit context but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. With many similar inventory/summary siblings, an agent has no routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.