Skip to main content
Glama
ogbm77

Cisco CX Cloud MCP Server

by ogbm77

get_uncovered_assets

Identify assets without active contracts for a customer to reveal coverage gaps in Cisco CX Cloud infrastructure.

Instructions

Get all assets NOT covered by contracts for a specific customer. Useful for identifying coverage gaps.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
customerIdYesThe customer ID

Implementation Reference

  • Handler for get_uncovered_assets tool: validates customerId input, makes authenticated API call to /contracts/not-covered endpoint, and returns the response as formatted JSON.
    case "get_uncovered_assets": {
      const customerId = args?.customerId as string;
      if (!customerId) {
        throw new Error("customerId is required");
      }
      const data = await makeApiCall("/contracts/not-covered", customerId);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify(data, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Input schema definition for the get_uncovered_assets tool, specifying customerId as a required string parameter.
    inputSchema: {
      type: "object",
      properties: {
        customerId: {
          type: "string",
          description: "The customer ID",
        },
      },
      required: ["customerId"],
    },
  • src/index.ts:150-163 (registration)
    Tool registration in the tools array, defining name, description, and input schema for listTools response.
    {
      name: "get_uncovered_assets",
      description: "Get all assets NOT covered by contracts for a specific customer. Useful for identifying coverage gaps.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          customerId: {
            type: "string",
            description: "The customer ID",
          },
        },
        required: ["customerId"],
      },
    },
  • Shared helper function used by get_uncovered_assets (and other tools) to perform authenticated GET requests to Cisco CX Cloud API endpoints.
    async function makeApiCall(endpoint: string, customerId?: string): Promise<any> {
      const token = await authClient.getAccessToken();
    
      let url = `${CX_CLOUD_BASE_URL}${endpoint}`;
      if (customerId) {
        url += `${endpoint.includes('?') ? '&' : '?'}customerId=${customerId}`;
      }
    
      logger.debug(`Making API call to: ${url}`);
    
      try {
        logger.apiRequest('GET', url, {
          Authorization: 'Bearer ***',
        });
    
        const startTime = Date.now();
        const response = await axios.get(url, {
          headers: {
            Authorization: `Bearer ${token}`,
          },
        });
        const duration = Date.now() - startTime;
    
        logger.apiResponse('GET', url, response.status, response.data);
        logger.debug(`API call completed in ${duration}ms`);
    
        return response.data;
      } catch (error) {
        logger.apiError('GET', url, error);
        if (axios.isAxiosError(error)) {
          throw new Error(
            `API call failed: ${error.response?.status} - ${error.response?.data?.message || error.message}`
          );
        }
        throw error;
      }
    }
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 mentions the tool's utility ('identifying coverage gaps') but does not describe key behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, what the return format looks like, potential rate limits, or error handling. 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 concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and utility. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids unnecessary details, making it easy to understand quickly without wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's complexity is low (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and usage hint but lacks details on behavioral aspects like return values or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations or output schema, more context would be beneficial to fully understand its operation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'customerId' documented as 'The customer ID.' The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 all assets NOT covered by contracts for a specific customer.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('assets'), and scope ('NOT covered by contracts'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_covered_assets' or 'get_contracts', though the distinction is implied by the 'NOT covered' phrasing.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides implied usage context with 'Useful for identifying coverage gaps,' suggesting when this tool might be applied. However, it does not offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_covered_assets' or 'get_contracts', nor does it specify any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is present but lacks detail on sibling tool differentiation.

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