librenms-mcp

by mhajder

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

Alert Rule Add

alert_rule_add

Destructive

Create a new LibreNMS alert rule with conditions, devices, severity, thresholds, delays, and mute or invert options.

Instructions

Add a new alert rule to LibreNMS.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`payload`	Yes	Alert rule payload fields: - name (required): Rule name - builder (required): Rule builder JSON with conditions - devices (required): Array of device IDs or [-1] for all devices - severity (required): ok, warning, critical - count (optional): Trigger threshold count (default: 1) - delay (optional): Delay before alerting in seconds - interval (optional): Re-alert interval in seconds - mute (optional): Mute alerts (true/false) - invert (optional): Invert rule logic (true/false) - notes (optional): Rule notes - disabled (optional): Disable rule (0/1) Do not include rule_id: LibreNMS would edit that rule instead of adding one. Example: {"name": "Device Down", "severity": "critical", "devices": [-1], "builder": {"condition": "AND", "rules": [...]}}

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.12.0Oct 15, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / payload / description

Previous value: -"Alert rule payload fields:\n- name (required): Rule name\n- builder (required): Rule builder JSON with conditions\n- devices (required): Array of device IDs or [-1] for all devices\n- severity (required): ok, warning, critical\n- count (optional): Trigger threshold count (default: 1)\n- delay (optional): Delay before alerting in seconds\n- interval (optional): Re-alert interval in seconds\n- mute (optional): Mute alerts (true/false)\n- invert (optional): Invert rule logic (true/false)\n- notes (optional): Rule notes\n- disabled (optional): Disable rule (0/1)\n\nExample:\n{\"name\": \"Device Down\", \"severity\": \"critical\", \"devices\": [-1], \"builder\": {\"condition\": \"AND\", \"rules\": [...]}}"New value: +"Alert rule payload fields:\n- name (required): Rule name\n- builder (required): Rule builder JSON with conditions\n- devices (required): Array of device IDs or [-1] for all devices\n- severity (required): ok, warning, critical\n- count (optional): Trigger threshold count (default: 1)\n- delay (optional): Delay before alerting in seconds\n- interval (optional): Re-alert interval in seconds\n- mute (optional): Mute alerts (true/false)\n- invert (optional): Invert rule logic (true/false)\n- notes (optional): Rule notes\n- disabled (optional): Disable rule (0/1)\n\nDo not include rule_id: LibreNMS would edit that rule instead of adding one.\n\nExample:\n{\"name\": \"Device Down\", \"severity\": \"critical\", \"devices\": [-1], \"builder\": {\"condition\": \"AND\", \"rules\": [...]}}"

First observedv1.9.0May 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context of its own (no mention of auth needs, side effects, or the non-idempotent nature). The one useful warning about omitting rule_id lives in the schema, not the description. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, which is penalized under completeness rather than here.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists and the parameter schema is rich, so the description needn't explain return values. However, for a destructive, non-idempotent mutation tool the one-line description does not add any behavioral or usage context beyond what annotations and schema already convey.

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% and the payload description is unusually thorough (required/optional fields, enums for severity, an example, and the rule_id caveat). The description text itself contributes nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Add) and resource (alert rule) scoped to LibreNMS, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like alert_rule_edit or alert_rule_delete, though the verb makes the distinction fairly obvious.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alert_rule_edit or alert_rules_list, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. 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.

Deploy Server