tacticalrmm-mcp-server

List TacticalRMM Agent Notes

tacticalrmm_list_agent_notes

Read-onlyIdempotent

List notes for a specific TacticalRMM agent by supplying its agent_id. Read-only retrieval of agent notes for review and monitoring.

Instructions

List notes for one TacticalRMM agent from /agents/<agent_id>/notes/. 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_notes"
  }
}

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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description repeats 'read-only' and adds the endpoint, but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination behavior or response structure. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a middle score 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 resource. No filler. The read-only note is short and reinforces the annotation without overloading. Every sentence 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 listing tool with good annotations and complete schema, the description is sufficient. It specifies the endpoint and read-only nature, and the response_format parameter covers output expectations. No output schema exists, but the parameters effectively describe the response format. Slight lack of detail on the content of notes, but not critical for such a straightforward operation.

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 description coverage is 100% for all four parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the endpoint context, which is expected given the full schema coverage. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'List notes for one TacticalRMM agent' with a specific verb and resource, including the API path. It distinguishes from siblings like list_all_agents or list_agent_software by specifying 'notes' and 'for one agent'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for retrieving notes for a single agent, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. It is implied by the tool name and endpoint, but lacks explicit guidance compared to tools that name alternatives.

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