Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cognigy-ai-mcp-management-server

cognigy-ai-mcp-management-server

by TsvetanG2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussions(1)Admin
TypeScript

get_package

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve detailed information about a Cognigy.AI package, including its name, description, and contained resources.

Instructions

Gets detailed information about a Cognigy.AI package including its name, description, and contained resources.

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": {
      "packageId": "<packageId>"
    },
    "name": "get_package"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
packageIdYesThe package ID to get details for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds that it returns details including 'contained resources', which is consistent and mildly informative but not essential beyond the annotations.

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?

One clear sentence of 15 words, directly conveying the tool's purpose with no unnecessary information.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides a reasonable idea of the return structure (name, description, contained resources). Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, read-only), it is adequately complete, though it could list additional fields like version or metadata.

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% with a single parameter 'packageId' described. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameter beyond what is already in the schema, so it meets the baseline.

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 explicitly states the verb 'gets', the resource 'package', and lists the type of information returned (name, description, contained resources). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_flow' or 'get_intent'.

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, no prerequisites, and no context for when not to use it. The sibling list exists but the description does not help select this tool over others.

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