cucm-emulator-mcp

emu_delete_inventory_item

Delete a specific v2 inventory item by its resource type and ID, removing unwanted configuration objects like nodes, phones, or route patterns from the emulator to keep test data clean.

Instructions

Delete a v2 inventory object

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": {
      "resource": "<resource>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "emu_delete_inventory_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`resource`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description merely says 'delete' without detailing side effects, required permissions, irreversibility, or potential impacts on related data. No annotations exist to supplement this, so transparency is low.

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, concise sentence with no fluff. It is well-structured for a simple operation, though it lacks additional formatting like examples or a more detailed breakdown.

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?

The description is overly minimal for a delete operation. It does not mention expected response, error handling, or any post-deletion behavior. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, this is insufficient for a user to fully understand the operation.

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?

The schema defines parameters (resource with enum, id as string), but the description adds no meaning. It does not explain that 'resource' must be one of the listed types or clarify the role of 'id' (e.g., unique identifier).

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the target ('a v2 inventory object'), making it unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get, patch, or list by indicating a removal operation.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., patch for modifications or list for retrieval). It only states the purpose without any conditions or context for usage.

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

Deploy Server