cucm-emulator-mcp

emu_create_evidence_bundle

Aggregate call evidence such as CDR, CMR, and syslog from session IDs or a scenario run into a single bundle for easier analysis and troubleshooting.

Instructions

Build an aggregate evidence bundle from session IDs or a scenario run

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": "emu_create_evidence_bundle"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`sessionIds`	No
`scenarioRunId`	No
`requiredArtifactKinds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the bundle is persisted, read-only, idempotent, or what 'aggregate' means concretely. It also doesn't disclose whether the bundle includes only requested artifact kinds or all available evidence.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence that gets to the point without filler. However, its brevity comes at the cost of underspecifying important parameter and behavioral detail.

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?

In the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is too sparse for a 4-parameter tool. It omits the role of id, the effect and meaning of requiredArtifactKinds, and what the returned bundle should look like.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to explain all 4 parameters. It only maps to sessionIds and scenarioRunId with passing mention; id and requiredArtifactKinds are entirely undocumented. The artifact-kind enum is significant and thus a notable gap.

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 states a clear action, 'Build', plus a resource, 'aggregate evidence bundle', and names the source inputs ('session IDs or a scenario run'). It distinguishes the tool from likely siblings, although it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with emu_preview_artifacts or emu_list_artifact_batches.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite such as existing sessions or an active scenario run. The only usage hint is the ambiguous 'session IDs or a scenario run' input selection.

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

Deploy Server