Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Directum RX MCP (rxmcp)

Directum RX MCP (rxmcp)

by drxinfra
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Hybrid

rx_call_action

Destructive

Invoke a Directum RX module action by name with parameters. Use only for operations without dedicated tools; may change data, so confirm intent before calling.

Instructions

Вызвать действие модуля Directum RX по имени (Модуль/Действие) с параметрами. Используйте только для операций, у которых нет готового инструмента rx_*. Действие может менять данные и не всегда обратимо; на нехватку обязательного параметра RX отвечает 404. Перед вызовом перескажите пользователю, что именно произойдёт.

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "rx_call_action"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesмодуль и действие через косую черту, например Docflow/StartTask
paramsNoпараметры действия объектом JSON

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds meaning beyond them: the action may mutate data, is not always reversible, RX returns 404 (not a validation error) when a required parameter is missing, and the agent must confirm intent with the user first. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then routing rule, then risk/error behavior, then the confirmation requirement. No filler sentences.

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?

No output schema, so nothing is owed for returns, and the 404/destructiveness caveats cover the main failure modes. The one gap is how an agent discovers valid module/action names and their required params (e.g., whether a describe/search sibling should be consulted first), which is left implicit.

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% and both parameters are documented (action format Module/Action, params as a JSON object). The description's 'по имени (Модуль/Действие) с параметрами' largely restates the schema, adding no format or discovery guidance for the action-specific params object, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource: calling a named Directum RX module action (Module/Action) with parameters. It also distinguishes itself from the entire rx_* family by scoping itself to operations without a dedicated tool, so an agent can route correctly without opening any sibling schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use ('only for operations that don't have a ready rx_* tool') and an explicit when-not rule implied by the same sentence. It adds operational conditions (missing required param yields 404) and a mandatory pre-call step (retell the user what will happen).

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