cnc-mcp

Get Provider Details

cnc_get_provider

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a provider's full Crosswork record by UUID or exact name to inspect endpoints, credentials, family, reachability, and properties before updating or deleting it.

Instructions

Get the full record of one provider, by UUID or by exact name.

Read-only. Exactly one of uuid / name must be given. Use it to inspect a provider's endpoints (connectivity_info), credential profile (profile), family, reachability and properties (for SR-PCE: auto-onboard, outgoing-interface, device-profile, preferred-stack) — for example before cnc_update_provider or cnc_delete_provider. A uuid lookup scans the (small) provider collection and matches client-side, since uuid is not a verified filter field on providers/query.

Returns: str: JSON object with every provider field as Crosswork returns it (note connectivity_info[].ipaddrs[].inet_af reads as 'ROBOT_INET_ADDR_TYPE_v4'; write bodies use 0 — don't round-trip a read object into a write). "Error: ..." when neither or both selectors are given, when no provider matches (verify with cnc_list_providers), or on an API failure.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Exact provider name, case-insensitive (e.g. 'cml-pce'). No wildcards; use cnc_list_providers to search. Give either uuid or name, not both.
`uuid`	No	Provider UUID, exactly as returned by cnc_list_providers (e.g. '4f1c2d3e-...'). Give either uuid or name, not both.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds non-obvious behavior: the uuid lookup is a client-side scan because uuid is 'not a verified filter field', and read objects must not be round-tripped into write bodies (inet_af differs). It also enumerates error conditions. This is real operational context 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then uses a Returns block and parenthetical asides to carry the quirks. Structure is good, but the Returns section is somewhat verbose given an output schema exists, and some phrasing ('as Crosswork returns it') repeats what structured output already implies.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With annotations (safety), a full input schema, and an output schema already present, the description fills the remaining gaps: selector exclusivity, uuid scan behavior, error cases, and the read/write field-format mismatch. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds value by reinforcing the mutual-exclusivity of uuid/name and by explaining that uuid matching happens client-side because it is not a verified filter field, which affects how the agent should source the value. It stops short of adding format details beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (get) and resource (one provider) with scope qualifiers (by UUID or exact name), and distinguishes itself from the sibling cnc_list_providers by returning 'the full record of one provider'. An agent can tell it apart from list/get_collection tools without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit rule ('Exactly one of uuid/name must be given'), names the scenarios where it applies (before cnc_update_provider or cnc_delete_provider), and routes to the alternative (verify with cnc_list_providers) when no match occurs. Both selection constraints and the fallback path are spelled out.

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