Monitoring AIops

swql_library

Read-only

Lists canned SWQL queries with names and descriptions so you can answer common SolarWinds monitoring questions by running an existing query instead of writing one.

Instructions

[READ] List the canned-SWQL library (name + description).

These answer the most-repeated SolarWinds SWQL questions directly — run one with swql_canned instead of hand-writing the query.

Args: target: Monitoring target name from config; omit for the default.

Tool call template

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": "swql_library"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces it with [READ] and discloses the return shape ('name + description'), which matters since there is no output schema. It doesn't cover pagination or ordering, but for a small static list that is minor.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the [READ] tag and purpose, then a rationale sentence, then the arg. No wasted prose. The args block is slightly redundant with the schema but stays short.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description covers purpose, next step, and the single parameter's default behavior. Only ordering/pagination details are absent, which is acceptable at this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: 'target: Monitoring target name from config; omit for the default' explains both the source of the value and the null-default behavior. This compensates well for the undocumented schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List the canned-SWQL library (name + description)'. The [READ] tag and the parenthetical clarify both scope and output, making it trivially distinguishable from swql_canned and swql_query.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent: browse this library, then 'run one with swql_canned instead of hand-writing the query.' It names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, which is exactly what usage guidance should do.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.