bigfix-root-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Client Query

client_query

Submit a BigFix client relevance query to targeted agents and poll until results finish or timeout. Supports all, computer IDs or names, or relevance-based targeting with paged results.

Instructions

Submit a BigFix client (fast) query and wait for results, polling until done or timeout. Targeting: set exactly one of target_all, target_computer_ids, target_computer_names, or target_relevance (client relevance evaluated on each agent to decide applicability). Targeting is limited to the configured operator's scope, so target_all means all computers this operator can see, not necessarily all computers in BigFix.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max rows to return (default 500). The response reports total_available and truncated.
`offset`	No	Row offset, for paging through results.
`query_text`	Yes	Client relevance to evaluate on each targeted agent.
`target_all`	No	Target all computers.
`stable_polls`	No	Stop after this many consecutive polls with no new computers reporting (once at least one has).
`expected_count`	No	Stop once this many computers reported. Defaults to the targeted computer count when knowable.
`timeout_seconds`	No	Max seconds to wait (1-600).
`target_relevance`	No	Client relevance targeting expression.
`target_computer_ids`	No	Target these BigFix computer IDs.
`poll_interval_seconds`	No	Seconds between polls (min 2).
`target_computer_names`	No	Target these computer names.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.0Oct 20, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / limit

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Max rows to return (default 500). The response reports total_available and truncated."
+}

addedInput schema / properties / offset

Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "description": "Row offset, for paging through results.",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses synchronous polling behavior, termination via timeout or result-completion, and the non-obvious scope caveat that target_all means all computers the operator can see rather than all BigFix computers. It omits permission/auth requirements and any rate-limit or load implications.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the action and the targeting rules front-loaded; every clause (polling, mutual exclusivity, operator scope) earns its place. Slightly dense but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the 11 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description covers the remaining high-value gaps (targeting exclusivity, operator-scope semantics, polling termination), leaving only the when-vs-siblings routing unaddressed.

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 schema already documents each parameter and a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating the target_* parameters are mutually exclusive and that target_relevance is evaluated per-agent, steering correct selection rather than just repeating field docs.

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 verb and resource ('Submit a BigFix client (fast) query and wait for results') and clarifies the synchronous-with-polling nature of the call. It implies differentiation from async siblings (client_query_submit/client_query_results) by noting it waits, but never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

It gives a concrete usage constraint for targeting ('set exactly one of target_all, target_computer_ids, target_computer_names, or target_relevance'), which is real guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over the sibling polling tools (client_query_submit/client_query_results) or session_relevance_query, leaving the main selection decision to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.