mcp-nagios-crunchtools

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct facet of Nagios operations: host status, service status, problem aggregation, acknowledgments, comments, forced checks, and notification history. There is no meaningful overlap between these actions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools share the nagios_ prefix and snake_case naming, and most follow a clear action-oriented pattern like acknowledge, add_comment, schedule_check. Even the status tools are clearly recognizable as noun-based descriptors.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for common Nagios workflows: status inspection, problem triage, acknowledgment, comments, active checks, and history. It avoids both bloat and unnecessary sparseness.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers the primary monitoring lifecycle well, including view statuses, list problems, acknowledge, comment, re-check, and review history. Downtime scheduling and custom commands are notable omissions but not critical for daily monitoring operations.
Average 3.6/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under AGPL 3.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

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 disclosure burden. It states only that a problem is acknowledged, omitting that this is a state-changing action with consequences such as notifications suppression, sticky ack persistence, and comment recording. The schema reveals sticky/notify options, but the tool's broader behavior is not disclosed.
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 one clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, although it is concise at the expense of missing valuable usage and behavior context.
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?
With no annotations and only a single sentence, the description is incomplete for a state-changing tool: it does not state the expected effect, any prerequisite like the problem needing to exist, or how this differs from related tools. The full schema explains parameters but not when and why the operation is appropriate.
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 description coverage is 100%, with useful per-parameter descriptions for host_name, service_description, sticky, notify, and comment. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning, but the schema already does most of the work, so a baseline of 3 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?
The description names a specific Nagios operation, 'Acknowledge', and clarifies the target resource as a host or service problem. It is clear enough for selection, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nagios_add_comment_tool, which could be a plausible alternative.
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?
The description gives only a general situation ('a Nagios host or service problem') and no guidance about when to use acknowledgment versus attaching a comment, checking status, or scheduling a check. There is no when-not or alternative routing, so an agent is left to infer its decision from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Get the current status' states the action but not the behavior behind it — for example, whether the result is a cached/last-known state or how it relates to a fresh check (which nagios_schedule_check_tool exists for). The description does not contradict any annotations, but it also discloses nothing beyond the name itself.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource are presented first and the sentence is tightly scoped. It is not bloated, though it is so minimal that it skips valuable routing context that other dimensions penalize.
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?
The tool is simple (2 required params, no nesting, an output schema present), so the schema and output structure cover the mechanics of a call. What is missing is specifically the selection context: with six sibling tools spanning hosts, services, problems, acknowledgements, scheduling, and history, the one-line description is not enough on its own to guarantee correct tool choice.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both host_name and service_description documented — including a concrete example ('HTTPS crunchtools.com') for service_description. The description's prose adds no parameter-level meaning, but per the baseline, the schema already does the heavy lifting, so a 3 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?
The description combines a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('current status of a specific service on a host'), and implicitly differentiates from the sibling nagios_host_status_tool by focusing on service-level rather than host-level state. It does not explicitly name a sibling or state what the tool is not, so it falls just short of a 5.
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nagios_host_status_tool, nagios_current_problems_tool, or nagios_schedule_check_tool. There are six siblings with overlapping Nagios domains, and the description gives the agent no rule for choosing among them, no exclusions, and no prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey an important trait: this is a scheduling action, not a synchronous check, and it is 'forced' and 'immediate'. However, it does not mention side effects, whether an existing check is replaced, or what happens after scheduling, leaving some behavior unstated.
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?
One concise sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the key verb 'Schedule' and then the resource. Nothing unnecessary and no redundant repetition of the schema.
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 simple two-parameter tool with a full output schema and full schema coverage, the description gives sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks only explicit guidance on when to use it among siblings, but the schema and output schema cover most operational needs.
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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters: 'host_name' is described as the hostname to check, and 'service_description' as the service name with an explicit note to omit it for host checks. The tool description adds no additional parameter insight beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Schedule') and resource ('a forced immediate re-check of a host or service'), making the tool's core action unmistakable. It also distinguishes this from the sibling status, history, and comment tools, which are all different operations.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance is provided, nor any exclusions or mention of sibling alternatives. The description states what the tool does but not the circumstances under which it should be preferred over a status check, acknowledgment, or comment tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose that comments are persistent, which is useful. However, it does not mention that this is a mutating operation, whether permissions are required, or how existing comments or host/service state are affected.
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?
Exactly one sentence, front-loaded with the action and destination, with no filler or redundant wording. Every word contributes to meaning.
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 simple 3-parameter write tool with a full schema and output schema present, this description is sufficient. It conveys the persistent nature of the action, the host/service difference, and the purpose, leaving little an agent needs to infer.
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%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds the 'host or service' context matching host_name and service_description, but it doesn't provide any additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already gives.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('persistent comment to a host or service in Nagios'), immediately distinguishing this from siblings like status checks or scheduling. The 'persistent' detail and host/service scoping make the tool's role unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage whenever a persistent comment needs to be attached to a Nagios host or service, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to choose instead. For instance, it doesn't contrast with nagios_acknowledge_tool, which is the closest alternative for problem ownership.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Get' implies a read-only, non-destructive query and 'current' suggests a live snapshot, but the description does not clarify potential error conditions, required permissions, or whether the status is cached or freshly queried.
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 clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately communicates what the tool does.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter read-only query tool with an output schema, so the description is largely sufficient. It could explain how host status is determined or what happens for unknown hosts, but the minimal scope keeps the definition reasonably complete.
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 input schema describes host_name as 'The Nagios hostname to query' with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('a Nagios host'), and the specific kind of information ('current status'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings that target services or perform actions like acknowledging or adding comments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for host-level status queries, which separates it from service status and other action-oriented siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over nagios_service_status_tool or when it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Retrieve' clearly signals a read-only operation, and 'recent notification history' defines a temporal scope. It does not describe sorting or pagination, but the presence of an output schema partly covers what an agent would need about the result shape.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the resource with no wasted wording, filler, or repetition of schema content.
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 simple read-only retrieval with two optional and fully documented parameters plus an output schema, the description is almost sufficient. The only real gap is explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools, which is a minor omission rather than a blocking one.
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 input schema already provides 100% parameter description coverage: hours has a meaningful description and default, and host_name is explicitly explained. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource: retrieve notification history from Nagios. This clearly separates it from sibling tools that report host/service status or current problems, and from the modifying tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use case is implied by the name and resource ('history'), but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor any 'not for this' examples. An agent can infer the use case, but it is not stated directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly conveys read-only behavior through 'List' and discloses what the return will be: a summary or confirmation that everything is OK. It does not mention potential edge cases like how acknowledged problems are handled, but for a simple listing tool this is acceptable.
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 two sentences, front-loads the tool's main purpose, and has no filler or repetition. Every sentence contributes useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what the caller should expect. No additional context about invocation arguments or output semantics is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not add parameter details. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly stays out of indicating nonexistent inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all hosts and services currently in a non-OK state'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings that focus on individual host or service status, making its purpose immediately obvious.
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 description implies this is the tool to use for a high-level current-problem summary across hosts and services, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to choose it appropriately, though exclusions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-nagios MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/crunchtools/mcp-nagios/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/crunchtools/mcp-nagios)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-nagios MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/crunchtools/mcp-nagios/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/crunchtools/mcp-nagios)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/crunchtools/mcp-nagios'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server