Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vibeMK

vibeMK

by chexma
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

vibemk_get_custom_graph

Retrieve predefined custom graph data from CheckMK monitoring by ID. Specify time range and aggregation to get the metrics you need for analysis and troubleshooting.

Instructions

📊 Get custom graph - Retrieve predefined custom graph data

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": {
      "custom_graph_id": "<custom_graph_id>"
    },
    "name": "vibemk_get_custom_graph"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reduceNoAggregation functionmax
time_rangeNoTime range: '1h', '4h', '24h', '7d', '30d'1h
custom_graph_idYesCustom graph ID

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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility. It only says 'retrieve', implying read-only but not explicitly stating it, nor disclosing return format, side effects, or limitations. The minimal wording fails to provide behavioral context.

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 extremely short and front-loaded with the action. However, it includes slight redundancy ('Get custom graph' vs 'Retrieve predefined custom graph data') and lacks depth, though for a simple tool it is appropriately brief.

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?

The description is insufficient for an agent to understand what a custom graph is, what data it returns, or how it fits into the broader monitoring workflow. With no output schema or annotations, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 descriptions for all three parameters (reduce, time_range, custom_graph_id). The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameter usage or relationships, so it neither helps nor hurts beyond the schema.

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 retrieves a predefined custom graph, using specific verbs ('Get', 'Retrieve') and a specific resource ('custom graph'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by being the only graph-specific tool, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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. It doesn't mention conditions like 'use for displaying pre-configured graphs' or contrast with metric tools such as get_host_metrics.

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