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

cucm-emulator-mcp

by calltelemetry
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

emu_get_contracts_versions

Lists supported contract versions for the Cisco CUCM emulator, allowing you to verify API compatibility for your integration.

Instructions

List supported contract versions

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_versions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided. The description uses 'List', which implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but it does not explicitly state this feature or disclose any other behavioral traits (e.g., no node context, no filtering). For a simple listing operation, this is minimal but adequate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence: 'List supported contract versions.' Clearly states the action and resource without any fluff. Perfectly concise.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is minimally sufficient. It conveys the read-only listing nature. However, it does not clarify what 'contract versions' means or how the result might be used relative to sibling tools (e.g., catalog, axl). Adequate but not rich.

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 and the schema provides no additional fields to documentched. The description adds no parameter-related meaning, but with 100% schema coverage and no parameters, there is nothing to clarify, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 'List supported contract versions' states a clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('supported contract versions'). It distinguishes from siblings that target catalogs, AXL, or OpenAPI JSON by focusing on versions, but does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like emu_get_contracts_catalog or emu_get_contracts_axl. The description only states the action without context for selection.

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