List ring groups to review simultaneous or sequential ring sets, including their numbers and member DIDs.
List ring groups (simultaneous/sequential ring sets over member DIDs) with their numbers and members.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the salient behavior that each ring group is returned with its numbers and members, partially compensating for the absent output schema, but says nothing about read-only safety, pagination, result ordering, or permissions.
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 front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical that earns its place by defining the domain concept. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.
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 read-only list with no output schema, the description covers the essentials including the returned fields (numbers, members). It omits pagination/volume expectations, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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 takes zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to compensate for, and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering inputs are required to call it.
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 uses a specific verb ("List") plus the resource ("ring groups") and defines what a ring group is ("simultaneous/sequential ring sets over member DIDs"), which an agent can distinguish from the singular get_ring_group and the create/update/delete siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling tool, but the list scope is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is only implied: the "List" verb signals a read-only enumeration, versus get_ring_group for one item. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the getter or what prerequisites (e.g., account scope) exist. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.