cucm-emulator-mcp

emu_update_cmr_publisher

Updates CMR publishing configuration for the CUCM emulator. Sets transport (none, local, http, sftp), SFTP host and credentials, upload URL, local directory, file prefix, and polling interval.

Instructions

Update canonical CMR publisher configuration

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_update_cmr_publisher"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`enabled`	No
`sftpHost`	No
`sftpPort`	No
`transport`	No
`uploadUrl`	No
`filePrefix`	No
`intervalMs`	No
`sftpPassword`	No
`sftpUsername`	No
`localDirectory`	No
`sftpRemotePath`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 23, 2026

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral details. It does not disclose side effects, idempotency, return values, or whether the update is additive or replacement. The description only states the action without any behavioral implications.

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 concise, consisting of a single sentence with no unnecessary words. However, its brevity comes at the cost of clarity—it is short but not informative. The structure is straightforward, but the content is too limited.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide any context about the tool's purpose within the larger system, expected inputs, or outcomes. An agent cannot make an informed decision based on this description alone.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The description provides zero information about the parameters. While the schema lists 11 properties, the description does not mention any of them, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone. There is no explanation of how parameters affect the update or which are optional.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('canonical CMR publisher configuration'), but the term 'canonical' is ambiguous and the scope is vague. It does not clarify what aspects of the configuration are affected beyond the general concept, nor does it differentiate from similar tools like emu_update_cdr_publisher.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when this tool should be used versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or conditions that would make this tool the preferred choice. The description lacks any usage context.

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

Deploy Server