list_groupsList all groups (teams) on the Olark account. Olark API: GET /groups. Returns groups (each with id, name, and operator_ids — the members).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Olark pagination page number, 1-based (offset-based paging; ~100 records/page). | |
| params | No | Additional documented query-string filters to send verbatim (merged with the typed params above). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context beyond that: it identifies the HTTP method/endpoint (GET /groups) and the response shape (groups with id, name, and operator_ids). No side effects or mutating behavior are suggested, and nothing contradicts the read-only annotation.
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?
Two tightly written sentences cover purpose, endpoint, and return shape without wasted words. The core action is front-loaded and every sentence contributes useful 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?
For a simple read-only list tool with no required parameters, the description covers the essential return fields and endpoint. The pagination semantics are already captured in the schema, so nothing critical appears missing.
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 both 'page' and 'params' already explained in the schema. The description adds no new parameter meaning but also does not need to; the schema carries the burden adequately.
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 all groups (teams) on the Olark account') and names the underlying endpoint (GET /groups). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_operators and add_operator_to_group.
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 explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to choose it over related tools such as list_operators or olark_request. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each dedicated tool targets a distinct operator or group operation, so the core set is easy to separate. The only ambiguity is olark_request, a generic GET escape hatch that can overlap with list_operators/list_groups, but its purpose is clearly labeled as a power-user fallback.
Most tools follow a clear verb_object snake_case pattern such as create_operator, list_operators, add_operator_to_group, and remove_operator_from_group. olark_request breaks the pattern slightly by being noun-style rather than verb-first, but the rest of the naming is consistent.
Eight tools is a well-scoped count for an Olark operator and group management server. Each tool covers a distinct operation without redundant duplicates or excessive granularity.
Operator coverage includes create, get, list, and update, but there is no delete_operator, which is a notable lifecycle gap. Group management is also incomplete since it only lists groups and manages membership, with no way to create, update, or delete groups.