list_alert_groupsRetrieve alert groups from Rootly with filters for name or slug, enabling users to review and organize alert group data.
List alert groups
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | ||
| filter_name_eq | No | ||
| filter_name_in | No | ||
| filter_slug_eq | No | ||
| filter_slug_in | No | ||
| filter_name_not_eq | No | ||
| filter_name_not_in | No | ||
| filter_slug_not_eq | No | ||
| filter_slug_not_in | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of result volume, pagination, or what 'include' expands — so with the lower bar set by annotations it still contributes no behavioral context.
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?
It is short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness — three words that duplicate the title convey no information. Nothing is front-loaded because nothing is present.
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?
The presence of an output schema excuses explaining return values, but for a tool with nine optional filter parameters at 0% coverage and several near-identical siblings, this description is wholly inadequate to call the tool correctly.
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?
Nine parameters exist with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. The nine filter_name/filter_slug eq/in/not_eq/not_in variants and the unexplained 'include' string are entirely undocumented, forcing the agent to guess semantics and formats.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus get_alert_group (single-group retrieval) or create_alert_group, nor any mention of pagination, prerequisites, or the fact that it lists all groups by default. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.