port_group_list_portsList all ports assigned to a LibreNMS port group by name or ID, with pagination via limit and offset.
List ports in a port group from LibreNMS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Port group name or ID | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return | |
| offset | No | Number of results to skip (offset) for pagination |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.12.0Input schema / properties / name / descriptionPrevious value: -"Port group name"New value: +"Port group name or ID"v1.10.3Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "default": 100,
+ "description": "Maximum number of results to return",
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "description": "Number of results to skip (offset) for pagination",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+}v1.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered in structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that – 'from LibreNMS' is only a source label, with no note on pagination behavior, result scope, or empty-group handling.
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 the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-wordy, but nothing in it is wasted.
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?
Annotations cover the safety profile and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the schema fully documents the inputs. The remaining gap is routing guidance among the many port-related siblings and any indication of pagination limits, which leaves the definition only minimally viable.
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, limit, offset) documented in the schema itself, including pagination semantics. The description contributes nothing further, so the baseline 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?
Specific verb+resource: 'List ports in a port group' precisely names the operation and scope. It distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like ports_list (all ports) and port_groups_list (groups, not their members) through the 'in a port group' qualifier, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus ports_list, ports_search, port_group_graph, or port_group_assign, all of which touch overlapping port/group data. The agent must infer selection 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.