ucontrol-mcp

Ucontrol Read Umap Ire Rules

ucontrol_read_umap_ire_rules

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve IRE rules for a kind before populating or linking CIs, ensuring correct relationships.

Instructions

uMap API: read IRE rules for a kind before populating or linking CIs.

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": {
      "kind": "<kind>"
    },
    "name": "ucontrol_read_umap_ire_rules"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds usage context but no additional behavioral traits like return format or error handling, which is acceptable but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and context.

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 read-only tool with one required parameter and safety annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. It includes the usage timing but omits details about the return structure and the semantics of 'kind', which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'for a kind' without explaining what a 'kind' is or what values it can take. The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 action 'read IRE rules' and the target 'a kind', which is specific. The 'uMap API' prefix helps differentiate it from the similar sibling ucontrol_read_schema_ire_rules, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'before populating or linking CIs' provides clear contextual timing for when this tool should be used. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage scenario is well-defined.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.