Create a new device group in OpenWISP to organize network devices by name and optional organization, enabling grouped management and policy assignment.
[Category: Devices & Controller] Create a new device group. (HTTP POST /api/v1/controller/group/)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Group name | |
| organization | No | Organization ID or slug | |
| organization_slug | No | Organization slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It notes the POST endpoint but says nothing about required permissions, organization scoping behavior, whether duplicate names are rejected, or what happens on success. For an unannotated mutation tool this is a significant gap.
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?
One compact sentence plus a category tag and endpoint, front-loading the core action. No filler, though the bracket category tag is marginally useful metadata rather than substance.
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?
The fully documented schema lets an agent construct the call, and no output schema means return values needn't be explained. However, for an unannotated write tool with org-scoping parameters, the absence of any behavioral or usage context leaves real gaps.
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%, with all three parameters (name, organization, organization_slug) documented inline. The description adds no semantics beyond that, 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?
States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('device group'), and the HTTP endpoint reinforces the operation. The sibling set contains create/list/get/update/delete variants, and the name plus verb identifies this one as the creation tool without opening the schema.
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 alternatives such as openwisp_update_device_group or openwisp_create_device regarding organization scoping. The only implicit signal is the verb in the name; there are no prerequisites or conditions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.