List LogicMonitor device groups with optional filters for parent group and name substring to locate specific resource groups.
List device/resource groups from LogicMonitor
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| parent_id | No | Filter by parent group ID | |
| name_filter | No | Filter by group name (substring match) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic list operation—no mention of pagination behavior, default limits, or how filters interact. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate for the minimal added value.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words, though it could arguably add a bit more context without becoming bloated.
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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it doesn't mention the default limit behavior, the meaning of 'resource groups' in LogicMonitor, or how this relates to the singular get_device_group sibling, which would help an agent fully understand the tool's scope.
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 schema already documents all three parameters (limit, parent_id, name_filter). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 ('List') and resource ('device/resource groups from LogicMonitor'), which clearly identifies the operation. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_device_group or get_collector_groups, but the plural 'groups' and 'device/resource' scope make the purpose reasonably clear.
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 implies usage for listing device groups but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like get_device_group (singular) or get_collector_groups. The context signals show many sibling tools, but the description doesn't mention any exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.