Skip to main content
Glama
mcprating

MCP Gateway

by mcprating
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

mcp_groups

Manage MCP server groups to connect or disconnect sets of servers atomically, simplifying multi-server workflows.

Instructions

Manage server groups for atomic connect/disconnect of sets of servers.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoServer URL (for add_server with SSE/WS/HTTP)
argsNoCommand arguments (for add_server with stdio)
nameNoGroup name (required for all actions except list)
slugNoServer slug to add/remove from a group
actionYesAction: list, create, delete, add_server, remove_server, connect (all in group), disconnect (all in group), show (details)
commandNoExplicit command for the server (for add_server with stdio)
descriptionNoGroup description (optional, for create)
transportTypeNoTransport type (for add_server)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.3

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the useful 'atomic' trait, but says nothing about destructive actions (delete, remove_server), permission requirements, error behavior, or side effects of connect/disconnect.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a tool whose schema carries the parameter detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a multi-action tool with eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is thin. The schema lists actions but the description does not help an agent understand action categories, destructive operations, or behavioral implications.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter and action. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that baseline, so a 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb+resource ('Manage server groups') and adds the scope 'atomic connect/disconnect of sets of servers'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like mcp_connect and mcp_disconnect that operate on individual servers, so sibling differentiation is missing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'atomic connect/disconnect of sets of servers', suggesting this tool is for group-level operations. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing versus mcp_connect/mcp_disconnect.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools