Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vibeMK

vibeMK

by chexma
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

vibemk_remove_user_from_group

Remove a user from a contact group in CheckMK to update monitoring notifications and access permissions.

Instructions

đŸ‘¥ Remove user from contact group - Remove user from contact group

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": {
      "username": "<username>",
      "group_name": "<group_name>"
    },
    "name": "vibemk_remove_user_from_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usernameYesUsername
group_nameYesContact group name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.10

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses nothing about side effects, whether the user or group must exist, reversibility, or what a successful removal implies. For a mutating operation this is a notable gap.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The text is short but redundant—the exact same phrase is duplicated, which pads the description without adding information. It is under-specification disguised as brevity.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should carry more weight. It explains nothing about behavior, expectations, or failure modes, leaving the agent to guess.

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% and both parameters (username, group_name) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a verb and resource ('Remove user from contact group'), so the action is identifiable. However, the phrase is repeated verbatim twice, adding no differentiation from the sibling add_user_to_group or the contact-group CRUD tools.

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 on when to use this versus add_user_to_group, update_contact_group, or delete_contact_group. The agent gets no context about prerequisites or selection criteria.

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