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

Directum RX MCP (rxmcp)

by drxinfra
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Hybrid

rx_project_risks

Read-only

Retrieve a project's risk register from Directum RX, including status, category, probability, impact, owner, mitigation and response plans, plus reference values for risk forms. Read-only.

Instructions

Риски проекта, как в реестре рисков карточки проекта: Id, название, статус, категория, вероятность, влияние, ответственный, описание и планы предотвращения и устранения последствий. В конце справочники вероятности, влияния, категорий и статусов: по ним заполняются rx_create_risks и rx_update_risk. Контрольные точки проекта показывает rx_project. 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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "rx_project_risks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesId проекта: число после # в строке rx_projects

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.16.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so 'Только чтение' is confirmatory rather than new. The genuinely valuable disclosure is that the response appends reference dictionaries (probability, impact, category, status), which is behavior an agent cannot infer from the schema or annotations.

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 resource and purpose, and the field enumeration and trailing dictionaries are compactly packed into two sentences. The long field list is dense but each item conveys the return shape, so it earns its space.

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 exists, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so with the field list plus the appended dictionaries. What remains unstated is the shape of those dictionaries (keys/values) and any ordering or size limits.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already explains project_id as 'число после # в строке rx_projects'. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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?

Names a specific resource (project risks) and enumerates the exact fields returned (Id, название, статус, категория, вероятность, влияние, ответственный, описание, планы). It also distinguishes itself from siblings: rx_project is for контрольные точки, and rx_create_risks/rx_update_risk are the write paths.

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?

Clearly implies its use case (retrieve the risk register of one project) and explicitly redirects to rx_project for milestones and to rx_create_risks/rx_update_risk for writes. It lacks an explicit 'use this when...' clause but the routing context is unambiguous.

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