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

ibm-mq-mcp

by moonfruit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_queue_manager

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve complete attributes and runtime status for a specified IBM MQ queue manager to inspect its configuration and health.

Instructions

查询单个队列管理器的完整属性与运行状态。

Args: qmgr: 队列管理器名称，例如 QM1

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": "get_queue_manager"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qmgrYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns complete properties and runtime status, but does not disclose operational details such as error behavior, default fields, or output format. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: one sentence states the tool's purpose, followed by a brief parameter definition. There is no filler or redundant information, so every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only lookup tool with one required parameter, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is sufficient. It explains what the tool does, what parameter to supply, and the 'single manager' scope, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema provides no description coverage for the parameter, but the description defines 'qmgr' as the queue manager name and gives a concrete example 'QM1'. This adds meaningful semantic guidance beyond the raw schema for the single parameter.

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 uses a specific verb (查询/query) and a specific resource (单个队列管理器/single queue manager), and explicitly states that it returns the complete attributes and runtime status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_queue_managers.

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?

The description makes clear that this tool targets one named queue manager rather than enumerating managers, which gives an agent clear contextual guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not conditions, but the single-manager scope is sufficient for differentiation.

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