Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vibeMK

vibeMK

by chexma
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

vibemk_activate_changes

Deploy pending CheckMK configuration changes to apply updates, with optional forced activation for specified sites.

Instructions

🔄 Activate changes - Deploy pending configuration changes

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": "vibemk_activate_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sitesNoList of site names
force_foreign_changesNoForce activation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.10

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects. 'Activate changes' implies a mutating, potentially irreversible action, but no details about impact on systems, downtime, or rollback are given. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 very concise with no fluff, but it achieves brevity at the expense of necessary detail. Structure is simple, yet the lack of explanatory context makes it feel incomplete rather than efficiently written.

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 the tool's role in a change workflow, the description omits crucial context: what triggers activation, whether it's reversible, and how it relates to get_pending_changes. It feels isolated and does not provide enough background for an agent to use it correctly in a larger operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both parameters have descriptions, but they are minimal and ambiguous. 'List of site names' is generic and doesn't clarify whether empty means all sites. 'Force activation' for force_foreign_changes doesn't explain what 'foreign' means, leaving the parameter's purpose unclear.

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 (activate/deploy) and the resource (pending configuration changes). It conveys the core purpose effectively, though it could more explicitly contrast with related tools like get_pending_changes.

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 this tool should be used, such as after making changes or before monitoring. It does not reference alternatives like get_pending_changes or indicate typical workflow ordering.

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