Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cucm-emulator-mcp

cucm-emulator-mcp

by calltelemetry
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

emu_get_contracts_openapi_yaml

Fetches the generated OpenAPI YAML specification for the CUCM emulator, providing the API contract needed to interact with available telephony operations and dynamically generated tools.

Instructions

Fetch generated OpenAPI YAML

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_get_contracts_openapi_yaml"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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. The verb 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, but this is not made explicit, and there is no statement about side effects, return shape, or error behavior. The information is implied but not transparently disclosed.

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, short sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, achieving maximum conciseness for the information it conveys.

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 tool lacks an output schema, and the description does not clarify what the YAML contains (e.g., a specific contract, the entire catalog, or versioned specs). With no parameters and no return description, an agent cannot predict the output accurately, making the description incomplete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters (empty schema), so there is nothing for the description to explain. According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description adds no parameter-related information—which is acceptable because no parameters exist.

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 verb ('Fetch') and a resource ('generated OpenAPI YAML'), and the format (YAML) distinguishes it from the sibling emu_get_contracts_openapi_json. However, it does not specify which contract or version is fetched, so the scope is not fully defined.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the JSON variant or the contracts catalog/versions tools. An agent has no criteria for selecting this over the siblings, and no exclusions or alternative conditions are given.

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