Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mq-bridge

mq-bridge

by marcomq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Hybrid

route_status

Read-only

Report live health and progress for one or all data-copy routes, including connection status, completion, messages moved, and current versus average throughput.

Instructions

Report the live status of one route (by name) or all routes: connection health, whether it has finished, the total number of messages it has moved, its current rate (messages_per_second), and the rate it achieved overall (average_messages_per_second over elapsed_s). Quote the average for a finished job: the current rate decays to ~0 once a route stops moving data. To wait for a job to finish, call wait_route once instead of polling this.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "route_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoA specific route name; omit to report every running route.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds a genuine behavioral caveat not in any structured field — that the current rate decays to ~0 once a route stops moving data, so the average must be quoted instead. It also names the constituent return fields in the absence of an output schema. Rate limits, auth, or truncation behavior on the all-routes case are not covered.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the return fields, then the two caveats. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical metric names slightly restate what the enumerated list already implies, and the routing note could be tightened.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing return values and does so by naming the five reported facts plus the elapsed_s denominator for the average. Combined with the decay caveat and the wait_route hand-off, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter's description ('omit to report every running route') already encodes the omit-vs-name semantics. The description's 'by `name`' / 'or all routes' phrasing mirrors that without adding format, casing, or validation detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Report the live status of one route ... or all routes') and enumerates exactly what is reported: connection health, completion, message count, current rate and average rate. That makes it clearly distinguishable from list_routes (enumeration) and route_messages (content) without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives an explicit alternative and condition for the most likely misuse: 'To wait for a job to finish, call wait_route once instead of polling this.' It also advises to quote the average for finished jobs. It does not, however, address when to prefer this over list_routes or bridge_status, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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