ucontrol-mcp

Ucontrol Read Umap Model Cis

ucontrol_read_umap_model_cis

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve configuration items (CIs) linked to a uMap model by supplying the model's ID and kind.

Instructions

uMap API: list CIs linked to a uMap model.

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": {
      "uMapId": "<uMapId>",
      "kind": "<kind>"
    },
    "name": "ucontrol_read_umap_model_cis"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes
`uMapId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the read-only and idempotent behavior is known. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or return format, providing minimal value beyond the annotations.

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, focused sentence with no redundancy or fluff. It immediately conveys the core operation and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 description is too sparse for confident tool selection. It lacks parameter meanings, relationship semantics (what 'linked' means), and differentiation from the many sibling tools. Annotations cover safety but not domain context, leaving the agent with limited understanding.

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?

The schema has zero descriptions for its two required parameters, and the description does not compensate. While uMapId is implicitly the model identifier, the meaning of 'kind' is entirely unexplained, and no enums or value hints are provided.

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 clearly states the action (list) and resource (CIs linked to a uMap model), which is distinct from sibling tools like ucontrol_read_umap_models that list models themselves. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related tools such as ucontrol_read_umap_model_details, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling read tools. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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