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

Directum RX MCP (rxmcp)

by drxinfra
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Hybrid

rx_project

Read-only

Retrieve a read-only project card with stage, planned and actual dates, manager, customer, grouped team, milestones, risk count, and plan IDs to answer status and participant questions.

Instructions

Карточка проекта: стадия, плановые и фактические сроки, руководитель, заказчик, команда по группам, контрольные точки с Id (для rx_update_gate), число рисков, описание и список планов с их Id. Используйте для вопроса «в каком состоянии проект и кто в нём участвует». Id проекта берётся из rx_projects. Дерево работ показывает rx_project_plan. Только чтение.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "rx_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesId проекта: число после # в строке rx_projects

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"Id объекта в RX (число из #123)"New value: +"Id проекта: число после # в строке rx_projects"
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; the description's «Только чтение» merely restates this and earns no credit. What it does add beyond the structured fields is the shape of the returned payload (no output schema exists) and cross-tool semantics — that milestone Ids are the input to rx_update_gate — which is genuinely useful behavioral context.

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?

Purpose leads, followed by a dense but purposeful payload enumeration, then routing rules. The long field list is justified given there is no output schema, though the enumeration slightly crowds out the routing information that matters most for tool selection.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the responsibility of describing return content and does so thoroughly, plus it supplies the Id provenance and the read-only guarantee. An agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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 the single parameter is fully documented there. The description's note that the Id comes from rx_projects corroborates the schema rather than extending it, so this stays at the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 opening sentence names the specific resource (project card) and enumerates precisely what it contains: stage, planned/actual dates, manager, customer, team by groups, milestones with Ids, risk count, description and plans with Ids. It is clearly distinguishable from rx_projects (list) and rx_project_plan (work tree), both of which are named.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger question («в каком состоянии проект и кто в нём участвует»), states where the required Id comes from (rx_projects), and routes the agent to the sibling rx_project_plan for the work tree. It also explains that milestone Ids exist to feed rx_update_gate, which is a concrete downstream-use condition.

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