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

cucm-emulator-mcp

by calltelemetry
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

emu_list_scenarios

List all supported v2 scenario definitions to identify available telephony operations and call simulation scenarios for testing and test planning.

Instructions

List supported v2 scenario definitions

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_list_scenarios"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only says 'List supported v2 scenario definitions' — a minimal read operation. It doesn't specify whether it's non-destructive, what the return format is, or any side effects. While 'list' implies read-only, the description doesn't explicitly state it, and no output schema exists to fill the gap.

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, focused sentence. It states the action and the object without extraneous words, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 annotation, the description must explain what the tool returns controller and what 'scenario definitions' are. It only says 'List supported v2 scenario definitions' without detailing the output format, pagination, or any other context an agent needs. For a tool with no parameters, the description should at least clarify the expected response, which it doesn't.

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 parametersaine, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). With no parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds the qualifier 'supported v2' which gives context about what will be listed, providing some value beyond the empty schema.

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 ('List') and a specific resource ('supported v2 scenario definitions'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like emu_apply_scenario or emu_list_active_calls. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential alternatives that might list other types of definitions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Given the large sibling list, the agent gets no help in 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