Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SyncroMSP MCP Server

SyncroMSP MCP Server

by advenimus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

rmm_list_alerts

Fetch RMM alerts from SyncroMSP filtered by status, date range, or page number to monitor system issues.

Instructions

List RMM alerts

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": "rmm_list_alerts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number
statusNoFilter by status
created_afterNoReturn alerts created after this date (e.g., '2026-02-25')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'List RMM alerts' without describing any side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens when no filters are applied. The minimal description adds no value beyond the tool name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at one sentence, but it borders on tautological ('List RMM alerts' adds little over the name). It lacks substance and could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given three optional parameters (status, created_after, page) and no output schema, the description should explain filtering behavior, pagination, or return format. It does not address these, leaving the agent uninformed about how to effectively use the 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantics, but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter meaning adequately.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('RMM alerts'), and the tool name distinguishes it from sibling alert tools like rmm_create_alert and rmm_delete_alert. However, it does not explain what qualifies as an RMM alert or the scope of the listing.

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. There are sibling tools like rmm_get_alert (for a single alert) and rmm_mute_alert, but the description does not differentiate when to list vs. get or mute. No mention of optional filters or pagination usage.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools