ActiveMQ MCP Server

list_connections

List all configured ActiveMQ broker connections to view active endpoints, verify setup, and identify which brokers are available for management operations.

Instructions

List all configured ActiveMQ broker connections

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": "list_connections"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.6Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List all configured... connections' strongly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it doesn't disclose what format the return takes, whether it reports connection health/status, or what 'configured' means (persisted config vs. active/live sessions) — which matters given sibling tools like connection_info and system_status.

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?

Single declarative sentence with zero wasted words. Fully front-loaded with the key verb and resource. Ideal conciseness for a parameterless listing tool.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool, this is nearly complete. The only minor gap is defining what 'configured' means (persisted config vs. active connections) and clarifying overlap with connection_info, but the description is otherwise sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

Tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage — nothing to document. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate since there's no parameter gap to compensate.

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?

Description uses specific verb+resource ('List all configured ActiveMQ broker connections'). It's clear and distinguishable from siblings like test_connection, connection_info, and import_connections which imply different operations.

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?

Description implies it's a read-only listing operation with no parameters needed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like connection_info or system_status, nor does it note other operations that might also list connection-related data.

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