tacticalrmm-mcp-server

List TacticalRMM Agent Tasks

tacticalrmm_list_agent_tasks

Read-onlyIdempotent

List automated tasks for a single TacticalRMM agent to audit and review all scheduled operations.

Instructions

List automated tasks assigned to one TacticalRMM agent from /agents/<agent_id>/tasks/. 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_tasks"
  }
}

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond repeating read-only and giving the source endpoint; it does not disclose pagination behavior or return format specifics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description is two focused sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 read-only list tool with comprehensive schema and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It sufficiently explains the resource and endpoint, but lacks explicit comparison to sibling list_tasks, which would improve completeness.

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?

The schema provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond referencing agent_id in the endpoint, so the 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?

The description clearly states the action ('List automated tasks') with a specific resource ('assigned to one TacticalRMM agent') and endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tacticalrmm_list_tasks by focusing on a single agent via agent_id.

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?

Usage is implied through the endpoint and agent_id parameter: this tool is for tasks of a specific agent. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of tacticalrmm_list_tasks for broader task listing.

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