ActiveMQ MCP Server

remove_connection

Remove an ActiveMQ broker connection by its connection ID to free up resources, terminate stale sessions, and maintain an organized broker environment.

Instructions

Remove an ActiveMQ broker connection

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": {
      "connectionId": "<connectionId>"
    },
    "name": "remove_connection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`connectionId`	Yes	ID of the connection to remove

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.6Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't state whether removal is reversible, whether it disconnects active sessions, whether it affects dependent consumers/producers, or if it requires special permissions. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero waste. However, it's arguably under-specified for a destructive operation, though conciseness itself is excellent.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain side effects of removing a connection, whether it impacts existing message flows, or what the result/confirmation looks like. Given the simplicity of the parameter, completeness could be higher with a couple of behavioral notes.

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% for the single 'connectionId' parameter, which the schema documents as 'ID of the connection to remove.' The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Remove an ActiveMQ broker connection.' It distinguishes from siblings like list_connections (listing) and connect_broker (creating/connecting), but doesn't explicitly name a differentiating alternative. Purpose is clear and specific.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no statement about when NOT to use this (e.g., versus disconnect vs. purge). No context about whether the connection needs to be inactive first or whether removal affects running operations. Implied usage only from the verb 'remove'.

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