woow_emqx_mcp_server

by WOOWTECH

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

List EMQX Rules

emqx_list_rules

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists rule-engine rules with SQL and enabled state to review EMQX data integration configurations.

Instructions

Rule-engine rules, with their SQL and enabled state.

Rules are how EMQX forwards or reshapes messages without any code — for example pushing selected topics into a database or a webhook.

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": "emqx_list_rules"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	1-based page number.
`limit`	No	Rows per page.
`enabled_only`	No	Return only rules that are switched on.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about what rules are and their role, but does not detail pagination behavior or return structure beyond that. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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 brief and front-loaded, with two sentences that convey purpose and context. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations are rich, the description is complete enough for a list operation. It explains what rules are and the list content, though it doesn't cover edge cases like empty results or pagination details, which are less critical for a simple list tool.

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 clear descriptions for page, limit, and enabled_only. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema already fully documents them, so baseline 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 it lists rule-engine rules with their SQL and enabled state, using a specific verb ('list') and resource ('EMQX rules'). It distinguishes from siblings like emqx_list_actions or emqx_get_rule_metrics by focusing on the rules list itself.

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 explains the purpose of rules ('forward or reshapes messages without any code') and gives examples, providing context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling list makes differentiation possible.

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