trmm-mcp

trmm_debug_log

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch debug log entries from the TacticalRMM server filtered by days and log level to diagnose errors and monitor system health.

Instructions

TRMM server debug log entries.

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": "trmm_debug_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No
`log_level`	No		error

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Sep 4, 2026

TDQS

C2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only the resource context 'server debug log entries' and no additional behavioral detail such as output format, ordering, filtering defaults, or scope. There is no contradiction with the annotations, but the description contributes little beyond them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is too terse to be functional, reading more like a label than an instructional description. It is concise but under-specified.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter documentation, and no usage context, the description is incomplete for a tool with two configurable parameters. The annotations cover the safety profile, but an agent still cannot determine what the tool returns, how the parameters behave, or when it is appropriate to invoke.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the parameters. It does not mention 'days' or 'log_level' at all, leaving agents to guess their meaning, valid values, or effects on the returned debug log entries.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description, 'TRMM server debug log entries,' is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name and does not state a clear action such as 'retrieve,' 'list,' or 'search.' It identifies the resource but leaves the operation ambiguous, and it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like trmm_audit_log or trmm_agent_event_log.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for server-side debug logs, how it differs from audit or agent event logs, or any conditions that would make it the appropriate choice.

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