graylog-mcp

List scan rules

list_scan_rules

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve built-in and configured scan rules with their queries, conditions, severities, and tags to inspect detection logic for a specified Graylog instance.

Instructions

Scan rules (built-in and configured) with their query, condition, severity and tags.

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_scan_rules"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`instance`	No	Instance from list_instances, e.g. 'payment/prod'; the default when omitted

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.2.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that both built-in and configured rules are returned, but says nothing about ordering, volume of results, or how rules feed into scanning.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the resource and then the returned fields, with no filler. The terse noun-phrase style is efficient but slightly under-specified rather than verbose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read-only single-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It stops short of explaining the shape of returned rules or their connection to the scan workflow, which an agent would need to chain tools.

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%, and the instance parameter is already documented with an example format ('payment/prod') and default behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 names the resource (scan rules) and states scope: both built-in and configured rules are returned, along with the fields query, condition, severity and tags. That is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like scan or list_presets, though it omits an explicit verb (the name supplies 'list').

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of how the returned rules relate to the sibling tool 'scan', no note on when to omit the instance parameter, and no alternatives named. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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