Create a dashboard group in LogicMonitor to organize dashboards by team, project, or use case. Requires write permission and accepts an optional parent group ID for hierarchical placement.
Create a dashboard group in LogicMonitor (requires write permission)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the dashboard group | |
| parent_id | No | Parent group ID (optional) | |
| description | No | Optional description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description states it requires write permission, which is a useful addition beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention side effects like what happens on creation or potential duplicates. With annotations covering part of the safety profile, the description adds some value but not extensive 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?
The description is a single sentence, brief and front-loaded with the core action. It includes a parenthetical about permissions, which is useful. No wasted words. However, it could arguably be slightly more informative without being verbose.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequate. It mentions the required permission. The schema covers parameters. The annotations cover safety. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly. The absence of output schema is not a concern since this is a create operation that likely returns the created object, but that is not specified; still, it's not essential.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (name, parent_id, description) are documented in the schema. The description does not add further meaning beyond 'name' being required. Since schema does the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is appropriate. No additional parameter info is needed.
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 states the action (create) and resource (dashboard group) and the system (LogicMonitor), which is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_dashboard' or 'update_dashboard_group', though the resource type differs. It is clear enough for an agent to understand the primary purpose.
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 mentions a prerequisite (requires write permission) which gives some usage context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like creating a dashboard or updating a group. It lacks explicit exclusion or alternative guidance. Implied usage is that it's for creating a group, but no comparison to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.