Fetch Service Insight service groups (BizService device groups) from LogicMonitor, with optional name filter and limit for targeted results.
List Service Insight service groups (BizService device groups)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| 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 safety is covered. The description adds useful scoping context ('BizService device groups') beyond the structured data, clarifying the exact domain. It does not contradict annotations and provides enough behavioral context for a simple list operation.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, resource, and scoping qualifier efficiently. This is an example of tight, purposeful writing.
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 two optional parameters, the combination of schema, annotations, and description is sufficient. Annotations cover safety, schema covers parameters, and the description names the resource. The lack of an output schema is acceptable since return value details are not essential for a basic 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 both parameters (limit, name_filter) are fully documented in structured data. The description adds no additional parameter details, which is acceptable given the schema coverage. 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 ('Service Insight service groups'), and the parenthetical 'BizService device groups' clarifies the type of group, helping distinguish it from generic device groups. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_services or get_device_groups, so it falls short of full distinction.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other list tools in the large sibling set. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage. Given the many similar list tools (e.g., get_device_groups, get_services), explicit when-to-use or alternative routing would be valuable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.