Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vibeMK

vibeMK

by chexma
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

vibemk_bulk_update_service_groups

Bulk update multiple CheckMK service groups by setting new aliases in one request. Replace repetitive single-group edits with a single batch operation.

Instructions

📝 Bulk update service groups - Update multiple service groups at once

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "entries": "<entries>"
    },
    "name": "vibemk_bulk_update_service_groups"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entriesYesList of service groups to update

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.10

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are present and the description provides no information about side effects, such as whether changes are immediately activated, whether partial failures can occur, or whether the operation is destructive. This lack of transparency is significant for a bulk write operation.

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 extremely concise and to the point, with no unnecessary words or repetition. It effectively conveys the core purpose in one sentence.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description omits important context such as whether activation of changes is needed, how partial failures are handled, or what the return value looks like. Given the absence of an output schema, this missing information reduces completeness.

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?

The schema descriptions for the parameters are already clear (name, alias), and the tool description adds no additional meaning. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description could have clarified expected values or constraints.

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 (update) and the resource (service groups) and indicates bulk operation, distinguishing it from single-update tools. However, it does not mention which attributes can be updated, though the schema provides that.

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?

The description implies use for multiple service groups but does not explicitly contrast it with the single-update sibling (vibemk_update_service_group) or state when to choose this tool over alternatives. No direct usage guidance is provided.

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