trmm-mcp

trmm_api_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Issue a raw GET request to any TacticalRMM API path and return the JSON response, providing access to data that has no dedicated tool.

Instructions

Escape hatch: issue a raw GET against any TRMM API path and return the JSON, for data with no dedicated tool. Example paths: /clients/, /checks/, /automation/policies/, /core/customfields/, /accounts/. Always permitted, in both modes.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "trmm_api_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`params`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Sep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: the operation is a raw GET, returns JSON, and is always permitted. The phrase 'in both modes' is ambiguous but not contradictory.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the key concept 'Escape hatch.' Every sentence contributes useful information, though the unexplained 'in both modes' is slightly cryptic and could be clarified.

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 an open-world generic GET tool, the description covers the main purpose, gives concrete path examples, states the return format, and signals permissibility. It does not document query params or elaborate on 'both modes,' but the core invocation context is sufficiently clear.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives strong semantics for the required path parameter through examples and the notion of 'any TRMM API path.' However, the optional params parameter is not described at all beyond its schema title, leaving a gap for the agent.

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 names a specific verb and resource: issuing a raw GET against any TRMM API path and returning JSON. It clearly positions itself as an escape hatch for data with no dedicated tool, which distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that cover specific endpoints.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use it: 'for data with no dedicated tool.' It also provides concrete example paths and notes that it is 'always permitted, in both modes,' giving the agent clear guidance on availability and scope.

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