Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
trmm-mcp

trmm-mcp

by shin2344234
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

trmm_server_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve TacticalRMM server version, settings, and current MCP server mode to verify environment status and configuration.

Instructions

TRMM server version, settings and this MCP server's current mode.

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_server_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns server version, settings, and current mode, but does not explain the output shape or what 'settings' encompasses. This is acceptable for a zero-parameter info tool but not especially rich.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single short line with no filler words. It front-loads the most useful identifying details—server version, settings, and mode—without redundant phrasing.

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 a read-only, zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a reasonable summary of the return content. It could be more explicit about the exact structure of the response, but given the rich annotations and low complexity, little is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description creates no parameter-related ambiguity.

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 clearly identifies the resource (TRMM server) and the specific information returned (version, settings, current mode), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on agents, clients, alerts, etc. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'return', so it reads more like a label than a full action statement.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as trmm_fleet_overview or trmm_api_get. No conditions, exclusions, or decision criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer applicability 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools