Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
thruk-mcp

thruk-mcp

by k9fr4n
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

thruk_add_comment

Attach a free-form comment to a host or service in Thruk monitoring to document observations or actions taken.

Instructions

Add a free-form operator comment on a host or service.

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>",
      "comment": "<comment>"
    },
    "name": "thruk_add_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostYesHost name
authorNo
commentYesFree-form comment text to attach to the host or service.
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

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states it adds a comment, but does not disclose behavior like whether it overwrites or appends, the effect of the 'persistent' flag, or permission requirements.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include critical parameter context without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema, no annotations, and numerous sibling tools, the description lacks information on return values, error cases, or when to select this tool over similar ones like thruk_acknowledge.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate for undocumented parameters like 'author', 'service', 'backends', or 'persistent'. It adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema.

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 it adds a free-form operator comment on a host or service, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like thruk_list_comments and thruk_delete_comment. The verb and resource are specific.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites or scenarios. The context implies use for adding comments, but no explicit exclusion or comparison.

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