List report groups from LogicMonitor, with optional name filtering and result limits, to locate and organize monitoring reports.
List report groups
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as pagination behavior, ordering, or whether the result is hierarchical. With annotations covering the core safety traits, a 3 is appropriate because the description adds no extra behavioral 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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it could have used the space to add distinguishing context. It is not verbose, so it earns a 4 for efficiency.
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 list tool with no output schema and no usage guidance, the description is thin. An agent cannot tell what a report group is, how it differs from reports, or what the response will look like. The annotations cover safety but not semantics. Given the large sibling set and the ambiguity of 'report groups', this is incomplete.
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 name_filter) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when 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 'List report groups' states a clear verb and resource, but it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_reports, get_report, get_scheduled_reports, or get_dashboard_groups. It is minimally clear but lacks specificity about what a 'report group' is or how it relates to other report-related tools.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (get_reports, get_report, get_scheduled_reports, run_report), an agent has no way to know if this is the right tool for listing report categories versus individual reports. The description gives no context about typical use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.