List LogicMonitor user roles using optional name or raw filters and pagination to locate specific roles.
List roles
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| filter | No | Raw filter expression (overrides name_filter). Example: name~admin,twoFARequired:true | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| name_filter | No | Filter by role 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 'list' – no mention of pagination behavior, default limits, or that filter overrides name_filter. With annotations covering the core safety traits, a 3 is appropriate since the description adds minimal 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though it could arguably include a bit more context without becoming verbose.
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 mostly adequate. However, it doesn't mention the relationship between filter and name_filter (that filter overrides name_filter), which is a behavioral detail an agent would need to know. The lack of an output schema means the description could have noted what fields are returned, but this is a minor gap for a list operation.
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 all four parameters (limit, filter, offset, name_filter) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics 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 roles' clearly identifies the verb (list) and resource (roles), which is sufficient to distinguish it from the sibling get_role (singular) and get_users (different resource). However, it doesn't specify any scope or context beyond the resource name, so it's clear but minimal.
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 retrieving role data, and the sibling get_role suggests this is the plural/list variant. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this vs get_role, nor any mention of pagination or filtering strategies. The context is implied by the resource name and sibling structure rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.