Skip to main content
Glama
ogbm77

Cisco CX Cloud MCP Server

by ogbm77

get_software_eol

Retrieve software end-of-life information for Cisco customers to identify which versions are approaching end-of-life and plan upgrades accordingly.

Instructions

Get software end-of-life information for a specific customer. Shows which software versions are reaching end-of-life.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
customerIdYesThe customer ID

Implementation Reference

  • Handler case for get_software_eol tool: validates customerId argument, fetches software EOL data from Cisco CX Cloud API endpoint "/product-alerts/software-eol", and returns formatted JSON response.
    case "get_software_eol": {
      const customerId = args?.customerId as string;
      if (!customerId) {
        throw new Error("customerId is required");
      }
      const data = await makeApiCall("/product-alerts/software-eol", customerId);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify(data, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • src/index.ts:192-205 (registration)
    Tool registration in the tools list: defines name, description, and input schema (requiring customerId) for get_software_eol.
    {
      name: "get_software_eol",
      description: "Get software end-of-life information for a specific customer. Shows which software versions are reaching end-of-life.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          customerId: {
            type: "string",
            description: "The customer ID",
          },
        },
        required: ["customerId"],
      },
    },
  • Input schema for get_software_eol tool: object with required 'customerId' string property.
    inputSchema: {
      type: "object",
      properties: {
        customerId: {
          type: "string",
          description: "The customer ID",
        },
      },
      required: ["customerId"],
    },
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., list format, data fields), whether it requires authentication, any rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the action and what information is shown. There's no wasted verbiage, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It adequately states the purpose but fails to provide necessary context such as output format, error handling, or usage guidelines relative to siblings. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, this leaves the agent under-informed about how to effectively use it.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'customerId' documented as 'The customer ID'. The description implies the tool operates on a specific customer but doesn't elaborate on parameter usage, format, or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get software end-of-life information for a specific customer. Shows which software versions are reaching end-of-life.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('software end-of-life information'), and scope ('for a specific customer'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_hardware_eol' beyond the 'software' vs 'hardware' distinction in their names, which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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 prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_hardware_eol' or 'get_security_advisories'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ogbm77/cisco-cx-cloud-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server