Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vibeMK

vibeMK

by chexma
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

vibemk_get_comments

Retrieve host and service comments from CheckMK monitoring. Filter by host name or service description to view specific comment details.

Instructions

💬 List comments - Show host/service comments

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_get_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
host_nameNoFilter by host name
service_descriptionNoFilter by service

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.10

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'List comments' which implies a read operation, but does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, return format, or any filtering logic. The lack of explicit transparency is a gap.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is short and front-loaded with the action 'List comments'. The second part 'Show host/service comments' is somewhat redundant but not harmful. It is concise overall, though a slightly tighter phrasing would improve structure.

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 simple list operation with two optional filters, the description provides enough context to understand the basic purpose. It does not mention output format or edge cases, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, this is acceptable.

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 already provides clear descriptions for both parameters ('Filter by host name', 'Filter by service'). The tool description adds no further semantic detail beyond restating the scope. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate and the description does not elevate it.

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 tool lists comments and implies the scope (host/service). It is distinguishable from the sibling 'add_comment' tool, but does not explicitly mention the read-only nature or what types of comments are included beyond the name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for reading comments, nor does it reference the related 'add_comment' or other retrieval tools. The user is left to infer usage solely from the action verb.

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