List LogicMonitor websites by applying filters for name, group, or raw expressions, with pagination controls to limit results.
List websites from LogicMonitor
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| filter | No | Raw filter expression (overrides other filters). Example: name~prod,type:webcheck | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| group_id | No | Filter by website group ID | |
| 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, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'list' – nothing about pagination, default limits, filter semantics, or return shape. It does not contradict annotations but contributes little beyond what structured metadata already provides.
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, direct sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and scannable. Though very minimal, it is appropriately concise for what appears to be a straightforward list operation.
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?
The schema fully documents parameters and annotations cover safety, making the tool minimally viable. However, the description omits any guidance on when to prefer get_websites over get_website or get_website_data, and does not mention pagination or filter behavior, leaving some contextual gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it correctly.
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%, with each of the 5 parameters documented (e.g., filter includes an example, offset is labeled 'Pagination offset'). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage 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 and resource: 'List websites from LogicMonitor.' It is clear and the plural 'websites' naturally contrasts with the singular sibling get_website. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_website_data or get_website_groups, so it falls short of full sibling 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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that get_website retrieves a single website, that get_website_data is for monitoring data, or how filters/pagination should be used. There are no exclusions or alternative routing hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.