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

cucm-emulator-mcp

by calltelemetry
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

emu_list_inventory

List Cisco CUCM inventory objects, such as nodes, route patterns, phones, lines, and users, from a specified resource collection to retrieve configuration data or manage telephony operations.

Instructions

List inventory objects from a v2 collection

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>"
    },
    "name": "emu_list_inventory"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resourceYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals a read-only list operation and a v2 collection, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, response shape, or what the returned list actually contains.

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 short sentence with no filler, making it structurally efficient and front-loaded. However, the brevity is partly a result of under-specification rather than dense, meaningful content.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description omits return format, pagination, and how resource selection maps to results. Because sibling tools overlap in domain, an agent cannot reliably choose or invoke this tool from the description alone.

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 should explain the resource parameter, but it does not even name it. The enum values hint at object types, yet the description only loosely connects them to 'inventory objects' and leaves additionalProperties and the meaning of 'v2 collection' undocumented.

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 concrete operation ('List') on a named resource ('inventory objects from a v2 collection'), so it is not a tautology. It is clear about the basic action but doesn't distinguish itself from sibling list tools such as emu_list_nodes or emu_list_phones.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The resource enum in the schema implies the intended scope, but the description itself leaves choosing between this tool and the many sibling list tools entirely to inference.

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