openstack-mcp-server

List security groups

list_security_groups

Read-onlyIdempotent

List a project's security groups and their rules to inspect network access controls. Use limit and marker pagination to retrieve results page by page.

Instructions

List the project's security groups with their rules.

Paged with limit and marker.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`limit`	No	Maximum items to return (1-100, default 50).
`marker`	No	next_marker from the previous page; omit for the first page.
`project_id`	No	Project ID to work in; omit for the default project. Allowed values are listed by get_scope.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`items`	Yes
`limit`	Yes	Maximum number of items requested.
`complete`	Yes	True when no more items exist beyond this page.
`resource`	Yes	Resource type of the items.
`project_id`	Yes	Project whose session produced the list.
`next_marker`	No	Pass as marker to read the next page; null when complete or when the API has no marker paging.
`observed_at`	Yes	UTC time the list was read.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include security group rules and are paged, but it does not mention authorization requirements, project defaulting behavior, or pagination termination details. This is adequate but not rich contextual disclosure.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loads the core action, and has no wasted text. The pagination note is compact and appropriately placed after the main purpose.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description gives enough context to understand the resource, included rules, and pagination model. The main gap is the unexplained `name` filter, but the overall definition is nearly complete for a zero-required-parameter listing tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 75%, with limit, marker, and project_id already documented in the schema. The description repeats the paging concept via "Paged with limit and marker" but adds no semantics beyond the schema, and it does not explain the `name` parameter, which is not described in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "List the project's security groups with their rules." That clearly distinguishes this as a collection-listing operation, and the phrase "with their rules" adds useful scope. It does not explicitly contrast with get_security_group, but the sibling naming pattern makes the distinction reasonably clear.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description contains no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternative-tool routing. It implies usage through the verb "List," but the agent is not told when to use this rather than get_security_group or another sibling.

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