ActiveMQ MCP Server

system_status

Retrieve overall system health and performance metrics for ActiveMQ brokers to quickly assess broker status and operational efficiency.

Instructions

Get overall system status and performance metrics

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": "system_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.6Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention what metrics are returned, whether this is a read-only operation (though 'get' implies it), what granularity of data is provided, or whether it covers broker/connection/queue health all together or only the local system. The description leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose clearly. While it could benefit from additional context about scope and differentiation, it achieves conciseness effectively.

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 0-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite thin. 'Overall system status and performance metrics' doesn't specify what subset of the system (broker, queues, connections?) is covered, what performance metrics are included, or what the response format looks like. Given the presence of related tools (health_status, broker_stats), more contextual detail is needed to disambiguate and set expectations.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no parameters to document). Per the rubric, a 0-param tool gets a baseline of 4. The description aligns with the empty schema and there's no parameter confusion possible.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Get overall system status and performance metrics' with a clear verb+resource ('get' + 'system status'), but it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool 'health_status' which likely covers similar ground. The purpose is clear enough but there's potential overlap with sibling tools that isn't addressed.

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 is given. There's no distinction between this tool and the semantically similar siblings like 'health_status' and 'broker_stats'. The description doesn't explain when an agent should choose system_status over these alternatives, creating ambiguity.

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