Skip to main content
Glama
monitoringartist

LogicMonitor MCP Server

list_access_groups

Read-only

List access groups to view permission boundaries controlling which resources users can see. Essential for multi-tenant isolation, team segmentation, and resource visibility management.

Instructions

List all access groups in LogicMonitor (LM) monitoring.

Returns: Array of access groups with: id, name, description, tenant ID, number of associated resources, number of users.

What are access groups: Permission boundaries that control WHICH resources users can see and manage. Used in multi-tenant environments to isolate customer data, or to segment access by team/department. Users assigned to access group can only see resources in that group.

When to use:

  • Manage multi-tenant environments (MSPs)

  • Segment monitoring by department/team

  • Control resource visibility

  • Audit access control configuration

  • Find access group IDs for user assignment

Access groups vs Roles (important distinction):

  • Access Groups: Control WHAT resources you can see (visibility, data isolation)

  • Roles: Control WHAT actions you can perform (view/edit/delete permissions)

  • Users need BOTH: Role (what they can do) + Access Group (what they can see)

Common use cases:

MSP / Multi-tenant:

  • Access Group "Customer A" - User sees only Customer A resource/device

  • Access Group "Customer B" - User sees only Customer B resource/device

  • Prevents customers from seeing each other's data

Departmental isolation:

  • Access Group "Network Team" - See only network resource/device

  • Access Group "Server Team" - See only servers

  • Access Group "Database Team" - See only database servers

Environment separation:

  • Access Group "Production" - Only prod resource/device

  • Access Group "Dev/Test" - Only non-prod resource/device

  • Junior staff limited to dev/test access group

Workflow: Use this tool to find access groups, then assign users to groups via "update_user" to control resource visibility.

Important: A negative "total" value in the response indicates incomplete results. Use pagination (size/offset parameters) or set autoPaginate: true to retrieve all items.

Related tools: "get_access_group" (details), "create_access_group" (create new), "list_users" (see user assignments), "list_resources" (associate resource/device with groups).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sizeNoNumber of results per page (default: 50, max: 1000).
offsetNoStarting offset for pagination (default: 0). Use this to skip a specific number of results.
autoPaginateNoAutomatically fetch all pages (default: false). When true, fetches all results across multiple pages. When false, returns only the requested page. Use false for large result sets to avoid long response times.
filterNoFilter expression using LogicMonitor query syntax. Examples: name:*prod*, displayName~*server*, id>100, hostStatus:normal. Available operators: : (equals), ~ (includes), !: (not equals), !~ (not includes), >: (greater than or equals), <: (less than or equals), > (greater than), < (less than). Multiple conditions: Use comma (,) for AND, use || for OR. Do NOT use &&.
fieldsNoComma-separated list of fields to include in response. Examples: "id,displayName,hostStatus" or use "*" for all fields. Omit this parameter to receive a curated set of commonly used fields.
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide 'readOnlyHint: true', but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it notes that a negative 'total' value indicates incomplete results and explains pagination behavior (use size/offset or autoPaginate). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand edge cases.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is well-structured with sections (returns, what are, when to use, etc.) but is verbose. It could be more concise, as multiple paragraphs elaborate on concepts that could be summarized. The length is acceptable but not optimal for quick scanning.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description provides a thorough explanation: it states the purpose, usage guidelines, return fields, conceptual background, behavioral notes, and related tools. The explanation of what access groups are and the examples cover the context needed for correct use.

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% (all 5 parameters are described in the schema). The description does not add per-parameter details beyond the schema. However, it does include an 'Important' note about pagination and negative total, which indirectly relates to the pagination parameters. The baseline is 3, and this minor addition does not elevate the score significantly.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all access groups in LogicMonitor (LM) monitoring.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('access groups'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_access_group' by noting it returns a list, and it explicitly contrasts with roles. The purpose is unambiguous and well-explained.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description includes a dedicated 'When to use' section listing specific scenarios (multi-tenant, departmental isolation, environment separation). It also provides a crucial distinction between access groups (what you can see) and roles (what you can do), and gives a workflow: use list to find groups, then assign users via 'update_user'. This explicitly guides the agent on when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/monitoringartist/logicmonitor-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server