Find Azure resource groups by name fragment with an optional result limit, supporting read-only Azure audits through natural-language questions 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, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds little beyond 'read-only filters by name' and does not mention pagination, scope, result shape, or open-world limitations. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the description does not meaningfully enrich behavioral understanding.
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?
The description is a single short sentence with the primary action and resource front-loaded. The word 'read-only' is somewhat redundant with the annotations, but the overall text is compact and free of filler.
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 two-parameter read-only list tool, the description is nearly sufficient, but it omits any mention of the limit parameter or return behavior. There is no output schema, and the Portuguese wording may add slight friction for an English-oriented agent, so several details are left to inference.
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 must compensate, but it only mentions filtering 'por nome' (by name). It does not explain the limit parameter or the exact matching behavior of name_contains, even though default values and property names provide partial hints.
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 uses the specific verb 'Lista' and the specific resource 'Resource Groups', and it mentions filtering by name, so the core action is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as list_resources or get_resource_groups_count, but the resource type is specific enough to avoid major confusion.
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 this tool versus alternatives like list_resources, get_resource_groups_count, or other list_* siblings. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the action described, with no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.