listGroups
Retrieve all contact groups from Follow Up Boss CRM to organize and manage customer relationships effectively.
Instructions
List all groups
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Retrieve all contact groups from Follow Up Boss CRM to organize and manage customer relationships effectively.
List all groups
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List all groups' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether it returns all groups at once, uses pagination, requires authentication, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about return format (e.g., array of group objects), pagination, or error conditions. It meets basic requirements but doesn't provide enough information for confident use without additional documentation.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and 'List all groups' appropriately implies no filtering parameters are required, earning a baseline score above 3.
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 'List all groups' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('groups'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getGroup' or 'createGroup', which would require explicit scope clarification for a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getGroup' (for single group retrieval) or 'createGroup' (for creation). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mindwear-capitian/followupboss-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server