Create a website group in LogicMonitor to organize websites for monitoring. Specify a name and optional parent group or description to structure your web monitoring.
Create a website group in LogicMonitor (requires write permission)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the website 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 a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), so the description's added value is limited to the explicit permission requirement. It does not disclose duplicate handling, response behavior, or side effects beyond creation, but this is acceptable given the simple create operation and existing annotation coverage.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and the key prerequisite. There is no redundancy or filler.
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 low-complexity create tool with a fully documented schema and annotations covering side-effect profile, the description is sufficiently complete. The absence of an output schema is not a gap because none is provided, and the permission requirement is a useful addition.
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 already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 a specific verb ('Create'), a precise resource ('website group'), and the system ('LogicMonitor'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_website, get_website_groups, and delete_website_group.
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 implicitly communicates when to use the tool (when creating a website group) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. The permission note ('requires write permission') is a prerequisite but not a usage boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.