List LogicMonitor dashboards using filters for name, group, or custom expressions, with pagination to locate monitoring views.
List dashboards from LogicMonitor
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| filter | No | Raw filter expression (overrides other filters). Example: name~prod,owner:admin | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| group_id | No | Filter by group ID | |
| name_filter | No | Filter by name (substring) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'List.' It does not mention pagination behavior, result scoping, or how filtering affects results, so the description contributes little beyond the structured annotations.
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 with no filler or redundancy. It states the core purpose immediately and every word contributes.
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 five-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves the agent to infer pagination, filtering intent, and the distinction from the singular get_dashboard. The annotations and schema fill in safety and parameter details, but the description itself is thin.
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 the parameter semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden.
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 and resource ('List dashboards'), clearly indicating a plural listing operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dashboard and get_dashboard_widgets, which either target a single dashboard or a different resource.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_dashboard, get_dashboard_groups, or export_dashboard. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or references to related tools, so an agent gets no selection guidance beyond the tool's name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.