Retrieve Azure Resource Groups for read-only auditing, filtered by name substring and result limit to inspect cloud inventory in VS Code Copilot Chat.
Lista Resource Groups com filtros read-only por nome.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| name_contains | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'read-only' adds no new information. The description discloses nothing beyond the annotations: no pagination behavior, no default limit of 20, no statement of what a name filter matches (substring vs prefix).
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean, but its brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy given two undocumented parameters.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should at least indicate what the returned resource groups carry and how paging works; instead it stops after purpose. For a listing tool with 0% parameter coverage, this is too thin for reliable invocation.
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%, so the description carries the whole burden, yet it only gestures at a name filter and says nothing about 'limit', its default of 20, or whether name_contains is a substring or exact match. It partially compensates for one of the two parameters and leaves the other undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Lista Resource Groups') plus the filter axis (by name), so the agent knows it enumerates resource groups rather than counting them. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_resource_groups_count, which is the natural confusion point.
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 the sibling get_resource_groups_count or list_resources, and no statement of prerequisites or scope limits. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.