Lists UX 2.0 policy groups with their profiles, device counts, and deployment state; optionally filter by solution to review policy status.
List UX 2.0 policy groups with their profiles, device counts and deployment state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| solution | No | Filter by solution (e.g. sdwan) |
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 full burden: 'List' reasonably conveys a read-only, non-destructive operation, and naming the payload fields (profiles, device counts, deployment state) tells the agent what comes back. It says nothing about pagination, result limits, or required permissions, which is a real gap for a no-annotation tool.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the return content appended only where it earns its place. No filler or restatement of the title.
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, one-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the one thing the schema cannot: what the result set contains. Only pagination/limit behavior and the read-only guarantee remain unaddressed, which is minor against this tool's complexity.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'solution' parameter already documents itself with an example ('e.g. sdwan'). The description adds no further meaning about the filter, so the baseline of 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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('UX 2.0 policy groups'), and adds the returned content fields (profiles, device counts, deployment state). It implicitly contrasts with the singular sibling get_policy_group, but never names it, so the differentiation is left to inference.
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 'List' verb and the 'UX 2.0' scoping imply this is the enumeration entry point, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it over get_policy_group, list_policies, list_policy_lists, or list_policy_definitions — a crowded sibling set where routing guidance matters. Usage is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.