mcp-server-wazuh

Agents Summary

get_agents_summary

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve Wazuh agent counts grouped by status to quickly assess fleet health and identify how many agents are active, disconnected, or pending.

Instructions

Read agent counts grouped by status.

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": "get_agents_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the grouping dimension ('by status'), and says nothing about which status categories appear, whether counts include all agents, or freshness of the data. Some value, but modest given annotation coverage.

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?

A single six-word sentence with the verb and the aggregation key front-loaded and no filler. Nothing in it is redundant or hedged, and it is sized appropriately for a zero-argument summary tool.

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 no-param read-only aggregate with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: the output schema carries the return shape and the annotations carry safety. The only gap is not clarifying whether counts are global or scoped, which a reader might briefly wonder about.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The grouping key ('status') is the only semantic input-like concept and it is named.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read agent counts') plus an aggregation dimension ('grouped by status'), which distinguishes it from sibling list_agents/get_agent that return individual records. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, but the aggregation-vs-listing distinction is inferable from the wording.

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 only implied: an agent can reason that this tool is for aggregate counts rather than enumerating agents, but the description never says when to prefer it over list_agents, nor any conditions or exclusions. No prerequisites or scoping (all agents vs. filtered) are given.

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

Deploy Server