tacticalrmm-mcp-server

List TacticalRMM Checks

tacticalrmm_list_checks

Read-onlyIdempotent

List TacticalRMM checks using configurable pagination and output format, providing read-only access to check statuses and details.

Instructions

List TacticalRMM checks from /checks/. This tool is read-only.

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": "tacticalrmm_list_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.
`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

B3.3/5.0

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, and the description's 'This tool is read-only' reinforces that without adding new safety context. The /checks/ endpoint path is mild behavioral context, but no additional details about pagination, filtering, or response structure beyond the schema.

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 short sentences, front-loading the action and resource. There is zero wasted wording, making it highly concise and scannable.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple and the schema/annotations provide good coverage, but the description lacks scope clarification (global vs per-agent) and gives no usage context relative to sibling tools. For a tool in a large family of list tools, this leaves the agent uncertain about when to invoke it.

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%, with each parameter (limit, offset, response_format) already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool lists TacticalRMM checks from the /checks/ endpoint, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this global list from the sibling tool tacticalrmm_list_agent_checks, which likely lists checks for a specific agent.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention global scope, filtering, or contrast with tacticalrmm_list_agent_checks or tacticalrmm_get_check_history. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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