Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
thruk-mcp

thruk-mcp

by k9fr4n
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

thruk_get_contact

Retrieve a Nagios or Naemon monitoring contact by specifying the contact name. Optionally filter by backend.

Instructions

Get a single Nagios/Naemon contact by name.

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": {
      "contact": "<contact>"
    },
    "name": "thruk_get_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contactYesContact name
backendsNoComma-separated backend names (sites). Omit for all backends.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description only states 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, permissions required, or error conditions. Without annotations, more detail is expected.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. While very brief, it is efficient for a simple retrieval tool. Could be improved with additional context without becoming verbose.

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 the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error handling, and usage guidance, leaving gaps for the agent.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for both parameters (contact name, backends). The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'by name', which aligns with the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description clearly states the action (Get), the resource (a single Nagios/Naemon contact), and the method (by name). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'thruk_list_contacts' which retrieves multiple contacts.

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_list_contacts' or other tools. The description lacks context or conditions for appropriate usage.

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