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

Directum RX MCP (rxmcp)

by drxinfra
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Hybrid

rx_create_risks

Creates up to 30 project risks in Directum RX with validated fields, eliminating manual entry. Check existing risk registry first to avoid duplicates.

Instructions

Создать риски в реестре рисков проекта, до 30 за вызов: так сгенерированный реестр переносится в RX без ручного ввода. У каждого риска обязательны название, описание, вероятность и влияние; вероятность, влияние и категорию берите из справочников rx_project_risks. Ответственный по умолчанию руководитель проекта, статус «Идентифицирован». Ввод проверяется целиком до записи. Перед созданием посмотрите rx_project_risks, чтобы не завести дубли. Нужны права на изменение проекта. Меняет данные в RX. Перед вызовом покажите пользователю список рисков.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "risks": "<risks>"
    },
    "name": "rx_create_risks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
risksYesриски, до 30 за вызов
project_idYesId проекта: число после # в строке rx_projects

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.16.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false): it discloses the 30-item batch cap, all-or-nothing validation before any write, default responsible person and default status, the permission requirement, and the pre-call confirmation step. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before mutating a register.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the batch limit, then prerequisites and workflow; nearly every sentence carries new information. Minor redundancy between 'Меняет данные в RX' and the annotation-derived mutation semantics, and the closing show-the-user instruction could have been merged with the duplicate-check sentence.

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 mutating, non-idempotent creation tool with no output schema, the description covers limits, validation semantics, defaults, permission requirements, and a duplicate-prevention workflow. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by telling the agent where to source free-text impact/category/probability values — the rx_project_risks dictionaries — which the schema only states for probability. It also reinforces which four fields are mandatory.

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 and resource (create risks in the project risk register) plus a hard scope limit (up to 30 per call). It is immediately distinguishable from rx_update_risk (mutation of existing risks) and rx_project_risks (read-only reference lookup), both of which it explicitly names.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use context and prerequisites: check rx_project_risks first to avoid duplicates, requires permission to modify the project, and show the user the risk list before calling. The alternative (reference lookup) and the exclusion (don't create blind duplicates) are both explicit.

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