Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ibm-mq-mcp

ibm-mq-mcp

by moonfruit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_queue

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve complete attributes and current depth for any IBM MQ queue by providing queue manager and queue name.

Instructions

查询单个队列的全部属性，包含当前深度 curdepth。

Args: qmgr: 队列管理器名称，例如 QM1 name: 队列名称，例如 DEV.QUEUE.1

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": {
      "qmgr": "<qmgr>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_queue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
qmgrYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context by highlighting the returned curdepth field, but does not disclose other behaviors such as error handling or queue-missing scenarios.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise: a one-line summary followed by a compact Args block. Every sentence provides value, with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only query with two well-described parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema available, the description is largely sufficient. The main gap is the lack of explicit routing to sibling tools for listing or other queue operations, but this does not block correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters with meaningful Chinese descriptions and concrete examples ('QM1', 'DEV.QUEUE.1'). This is exactly what the agent needs to supply correct values.

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 a specific action ('query') and resource ('a single queue's all attributes'), including the notable 'curdepth' field. It distinguishes itself from list_queues by focusing on a single queue, though it does not explicitly name siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage context is implied by 'single queue' versus siblings like list_queues, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool instead of alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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