List LogicMonitor recipient groups, filter by name, and fetch complete recipient details per group when needed.
List recipient groups
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| detail | No | When true, fetch each group's full recipient list via an extra GET per group. Off by default to avoid N+1 API calls. | |
| name_filter | No | Filter by group name (supports wildcards) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the operation is clearly safe and read-only. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as pagination behavior, default limits, or the extra per-group API calls implied by the detail parameter. No contradiction exists, but no additional transparency is provided.
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, clear phrase with no filler. It communicates the essential action and resource in four words, earning its place and avoiding unnecessary detail.
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 operation, the schema and annotations compensate for much of the missing context: all parameters are documented and the operation is marked safe. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not describe return shape, ordering, or when to use the detail flag. The definition is adequate but leaves some invocation context implicit.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of the parameters and even includes useful semantic notes, such as the N+1 API call behavior for detail and the default value for limit. The description itself adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 and resource: 'List recipient groups'. The plural 'groups' helps distinguish it from the sibling get_recipient_group, and the verb 'list' implies collection retrieval. However, it does not explicitly describe scope or contrast with the singular getter, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.
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 about when to use this tool versus get_recipient_group, create_recipient_group, or other sibling tools. It also does not mention when the detail flag or name_filter should be used. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and parameter schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.