tacticalrmm-mcp-server

List TacticalRMM Agent Checks

tacticalrmm_list_agent_checks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve checks assigned to a specific TacticalRMM agent by providing its agent_id. Get a read-only list of monitoring checks for that agent.

Instructions

List checks assigned to one TacticalRMM agent from /agents/<agent_id>/checks/. This tool is read-only.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>"
    },
    "name": "tacticalrmm_list_agent_checks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum number of items to return.
`offset`	No	Number of items to skip locally after receiving the API response.
`agent_id`	Yes	TacticalRMM agent_id value.
`response_format`	No	Output format: markdown for human-readable summaries, json for structured output.	markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds the endpoint path but otherwise restates 'read-only', which is redundant. No additional behavioral details like pagination or rate limits are disclosed, so a 3 is appropriate.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and no wasted words. Every word earns its place.

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 simple list tool with complete schema and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It mentions the per-agent scope and endpoint, and the response_format parameter handles output variety. Could mention return structure, but not required given schema richness.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, with every parameter described clearly. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('List checks') and the resource scope ('assigned to one TacticalRMM agent'), with the specific endpoint path (/agents/<agent_id>/checks/). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_checks, which likely cover all checks.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies use for a single agent, which helps distinguish from list_checks. But it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as 'for all checks use list_checks'. The 'one agent' wording provides clear context, earning a 4.

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