List UX 2.0 topology groups with device counts and state, optionally filtered by solution, to inspect SD-WAN hub-and-spoke or mesh topologies.
List UX 2.0 topology groups (hub-and-spoke / mesh topologies) with device counts and 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 exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that results include device counts and state, which is useful output-shape context, but says nothing about pagination, permissions, or whether device counts are live or cached.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause ('UX 2.0', 'hub-and-spoke / mesh', 'device counts and state') contributes information.
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?
A simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description hints at return contents but doesn't fully describe the response shape (fields per group, ordering, empty-case behavior), leaving a modest gap.
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?
Single optional 'solution' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents filtering. The description adds no meaning about the filter or its default behavior, which is the acceptable 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 and resource ('List UX 2.0 topology groups') and adds scope (hub-and-spoke / mesh topologies) plus the contents enumerated (device counts and state). Sibling get_topology_group is implicitly the single-record counterpart, though the description never names it.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the bulk-listing counterpart to get_topology_group.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.