Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vibeMK

vibeMK

by chexma
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

vibemk_get_ruleset

Retrieve a specific CheckMK ruleset configuration by name to view its current settings and rules, enabling quick inspection and verification of monitoring policies.

Instructions

📋 Get ruleset - Show specific ruleset configuration

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": {
      "ruleset_name": "<ruleset_name>"
    },
    "name": "vibemk_get_ruleset"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ruleset_nameYesRuleset name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.10

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must convey side effects; 'Get' and 'Show' imply a read-only operation but do not explicitly state that no changes are made or what happens if the ruleset does not exist. This leaves behavioral transparency weak.

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, with no redundant words or unnecessary detail. It includes an emoji but that does not detract.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple getter with one parameter, the description is minimally sufficient, but it omits any information about the response shape, error behavior, or relationship to sibling ruleset tools. This could leave an agent uncertain about output expectations.

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 only parameter is described as 'Ruleset name,' matching the schema, but no additional context is given about expected format, uniqueness, or examples. Schema coverage is high, so baseline is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly identifies the action (get/show) and target (specific ruleset configuration), with a single required parameter. However, it does not differentiate from similarly named siblings like show_ruleset or list_rulesets, leaving minor ambiguity.

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 about when to prefer this tool over get_rulesets, show_ruleset, or list_rulesets. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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