Retrieves UX 2.0 configuration groups with feature profiles, device counts, and deployment state, with optional filters by exact name or solution.
List UX 2.0 configuration groups with their feature profiles, device counts and deployment state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Exact configuration group name | |
| solution | No | Filter by solution (e.g. sdwan, sd-routing) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses useful output content (feature profiles, device counts, deployment state) and implies a read-only listing, but it omits pagination behavior, result limits, and any auth or scope constraints.
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 identifies the resource, scope, and returned fields efficiently.
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 two-optional-parameter list tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks pagination or result-size guidance, and with no output schema it could say more about return shape beyond a brief field summary.
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 optional filters (name, solution) are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (UX 2.0 configuration groups) and even summarizes the returned fields (feature profiles, device counts, deployment state). It is clear and distinguishable from singular siblings like get_config_group, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with an alternative tool.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent must infer from the name that this is the list variant versus get_config_group or list_feature_profiles.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.