List OID definitions from LogicMonitor, filtering by OID substring and limiting results for targeted monitoring configuration.
List OID definitions
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| oid_filter | No | Filter by OID (substring) |
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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., return format, pagination) but does not contradict the annotations. It meets the minimum bar given 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?
A single, efficient sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Perfectly concise for a simple listing tool.
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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It states the core function, and the schema covers parameter details. It could mention that it returns a list, but that is implied by 'List'.
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 both parameters (limit and oid_filter) are fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 a resource ('OID definitions'). It clearly implies a listing operation, and the plural 'definitions' distinguishes it from the singular sibling get_oid. However, it does not explicitly call out the alternative, so it relies on the plural/singular contrast.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_oid, nor any mention of filtering or pagination. The description simply states the action without context on appropriate usage or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.