Skip to main content
Glama
k9fr4n

thruk-mcp

by k9fr4n

thruk_notification_heatmap

Generate a heatmap of notification counts grouped by time bucket, with filters for host, service, group, state, and custom variables over a configurable time window.

Instructions

Return notification counts grouped by time bucket over a window.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sinceNoStart of analysis window. Thruk relative time ("-2h", "-7d") or ISO datetime ("2026-05-21 14:00:00"). Default: last 24 h.-24h
untilNoEnd of the time window (same formats as since). Default: now.
bucketNoTime bucket width: '15m', '30m', '1h' (default), '6h', '1d'.1h
filterNoStructured filter tree supporting AND/OR nesting. Two node types: leaf: {"type":"leaf", "field":"...", "op":"...", "value":...} group: {"type":"group", "operator":"and"|"or", "conditions":[...]} Available fields: contact, custom_var, host, hostgroup, service, since, state, until Operators: eq, gte, in, lte, neq, regex The 'since'/'until' fields accept Thruk relative time ("-2h", "-7d") or ISO datetime ("2026-05-21 14:00:00"). Examples: # Hosts DOWN in HG_AGILE: {"type":"group","operator":"and","conditions":[ {"type":"leaf","field":"hostgroup","op":"eq","value":"HG_AGILE"}, {"type":"leaf","field":"state","op":"eq","value":"down"} ]} # Hosts in HG_AGILE OR with KERNEL=windows: {"type":"group","operator":"or","conditions":[ {"type":"leaf","field":"hostgroup","op":"eq","value":"HG_AGILE"}, {"type":"leaf","field":"custom_var","op":"eq","value":{"var":"KERNEL","val":"windows"}} ]}
backendsNoComma-separated backend names (sites). Omit for all backends.
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the output but doesn't mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what 'window' means precisely. It implies a read-only operation but doesn't confirm.

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?

A single, 12-word sentence efficiently conveys the core function. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it could be slightly improved by placing the grouping information earlier.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should explain the return format (e.g., a map of time buckets to counts). It does not. For a tool with a complex filter parameter, the description does not compensate for missing output details.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it merely summarizes the grouping already indicated by the 'bucket' parameter. However, it doesn't detract from the schema.

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 ('return'), resource ('notification counts'), and grouping ('by time bucket over a window'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like thruk_notifications (individual notifications) and thruk_notification_summary (aggregated but not necessarily time-bucketed).

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. For example, it doesn't differentiate from thruk_alert_heatmap or thruk_notification_summary. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/k9fr4n/thruk-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server