Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
thruk-mcp

thruk-mcp

by k9fr4n
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

thruk_acknowledge

Acknowledge host or service problems in Thruk to suppress alerts, with options for sticky acknowledgment, notification control, and persistent comments.

Instructions

Acknowledge a host or service problem.

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": {
      "host": "<host>"
    },
    "name": "thruk_acknowledge"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostYesHost name
authorNo
notifyNo
stickyNo
commentNo
serviceNo
backendsNoComma-separated backend names (sites). Omit for all backends.
persistentNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the action is reversible, requires certain permissions, or affects notifications. The word 'acknowledge' implies a non-destructive operation but doesn't confirm or elaborate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (5 words), which is efficient but at the cost of missing critical details. It is front-loaded but lacks structure. While not verbose, it is too minimal for a complex tool with 8 parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is severely incomplete given the tool's complexity: 8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage. It provides almost no context about behavior, return values, or usage examples.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (2 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond what is minimally present in the schema. For a tool with 8 parameters and low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 clearly states the action 'Acknowledge' and the resource 'host or service problem', making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like thruk_bulk_acknowledge or thruk_remove_acknowledgement, so it doesn't achieve the highest score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as thruk_bulk_acknowledge for multiple items or thruk_remove_acknowledgement for reversal. The description lacks context on prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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