Retrieve a list of cyber threat intelligence groups from OpenCTI, with an option to limit the number of results.
列出所有群組
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_groups"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| first | No | 返回結果數量限制 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'list all groups' without mentioning pagination, sorting, rate limits, or side effects. The parameter hinting at result limits is in the schema, not the description.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It earns its place by being concise, though it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one optional param, no output schema), the description is minimal. It omits context like what 'groups' refer to, scope, or behavioral details, which reduces completeness for an agent unfamiliar with the system.
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%—the only parameter 'first' has a description in the schema ('限制返回結果數量'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 '列出所有群組' (List all groups) clearly states the action (list) and resource (groups), and distinguishes it from sibling tools targeting other resources like campaigns, files, users, etc.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. Usage is implied when the agent needs to list groups, but there is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or when another tool might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.