cucm-emulator-mcp

emu_create_call_session

Creates a canonical v2 call session for Cisco CUCM emulator to simulate telephony calls. Provide source device and called number to initiate the session.

Instructions

Create a canonical v2 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": {
      "sourceDeviceName": "<sourceDeviceName>",
      "calledNumber": "<calledNumber>"
    },
    "name": "emu_create_call_session"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`timestamp`	No
`calledNumber`	Yes
`callingNumber`	No
`dispatchCurri`	No
`durationSeconds`	No
`sourceDeviceName`	Yes
`externalCallControlProfileName`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 23, 2026

TDQS

D1.6/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses no side effects, no prerequisites, no return behavior, no resource impact. 'Create' implies state mutation, but nothing describes what the session lifecycle looks like.

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 single-sentence description is extremely concise and front-loaded. However, it's concise to the point of being uninformative – brevity here comes at the cost of clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description must do all the work. It does almost none of it. An agent cannot determine required fields, formats, or expectations.

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?

All 7 parameters have 0% schema description coverage overall, and the description doesn't explain any parameter semantics. An agent looking at 'callingNumber' vs 'calledNumber' vs 'sourceDeviceName' gets no guidance from the description.

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 'Create a canonical v2 call session' states a verb and resource, but 'canonical v2' is opaque jargon. It doesn't say what the call session represents or how it differs from related tools like emu_simulate_call or emu_list_call_sessions. The purpose is only barely identifiable.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus emu_simulate_call, emu_call_action, or emu_terminate_call_session. An agent has no basis to select this tool over siblings.

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

Deploy Server