Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vibeMK

vibeMK

by chexma
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

vibemk_show_ruleset

View complete details of a specific CheckMK ruleset by providing its name, simplifying configuration review and troubleshooting.

Instructions

📋 Show ruleset details - Display detailed information about a specific ruleset

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_show_ruleset"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ruleset_nameYesThe name of the ruleset (e.g., host_groups, host_contactgroups)

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It says 'Display detailed information' but doesn't specify what details are returned, whether it's read-only, or any side effects. For a simple read tool, this is minimal disclosure.

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 brief and front-loaded with the emoji and action. However, the brevity comes at the cost of substance; it's concise but not very informative. It earns a 4 for being concise, though not for depth.

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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, so the description must explain what 'details' means. It doesn't say whether it returns rules, configuration, or metadata. Given the existence of many sibling ruleset tools, this lack of specificity is a significant gap.

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 description covers the parameter fully (ruleset_name with an example). The tool description adds nothing beyond that, so it doesn't enhance understanding. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 it shows ruleset details for a specific ruleset, using a clear verb and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like vibemk_get_ruleset, which likely serves the same purpose, so it's not fully distinct.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vibemk_get_ruleset or vibemk_list_rulesets. The description doesn't mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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