cucm-emulator-mcp

emu_call_action

Manage an active call by answering, holding, resuming, or dropping it. Supply a session ID and optional reason to execute the desired mid-call state transition.

Instructions

Executes mid-call state transitions such as answering, holding, resuming, or disconnecting an active call session.

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": {
      "sessionId": "<sessionId>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "emu_call_action"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	Yes	Action to perform on the call session
`reason`	No	Optional disconnect or action reason (e.g. NormalClearing, UserBusy)
`sessionId`	Yes	Unique call session ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names the actions but does not disclose side effects, state-machine constraints, whether 'drop' fully terminates the session, required preconditions, or any safety-relevant behavior. For a mutating tool this is a significant gap.

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 sentence with no filler, and the enumerated examples are useful and front-loaded. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

For a state-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits return behavior, preconditions, and the relationship to sibling session-management tools, leaving an agent to infer too much.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description's examples mirror the action enum but add no additional meaning for sessionId or reason beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Executes') and identifies the resource ('mid-call state transitions') with concrete examples: answering, holding, resuming, disconnecting. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like emu_terminate_call_session or emu_simulate_call.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'active call session' implies when the tool should be used, but the description gives no explicit when/when-not guidance and does not mention alternatives such as emu_terminate_call_session or emu_create_call_session. Usage context is inferable, not stated.

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

Deploy Server