Skip to main content
Glama
ruegreen

Cisco MCP Pods Server

by ruegreen

get_pod_keyword

Retrieve the current keyword and password configuration for Cisco API Gateway pods to manage authentication credentials and access settings.

Instructions

Get the pod keyword/password record. Returns the current keyword configuration.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function that executes the tool logic: makes a GET request to the /api/v2/pods/keyword endpoint using the configured base URL and authentication.
    async getPodKeyword() {
      const url = `${this.baseUrl}/api/v2/pods/keyword`;
      return this.makeRequest(url, { method: 'GET' });
    }
  • The tool schema definition including name, description, and empty input schema (no parameters required). Used in ListTools response.
      name: 'get_pod_keyword',
      description: 'Get the pod keyword/password record. Returns the current keyword configuration.',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {},
      },
    },
  • src/index.js:209-219 (registration)
    Tool execution handler in the CallToolRequestSchema switch statement: calls podsClient.getPodKeyword() and formats response as text content.
    case 'get_pod_keyword': {
      const result = await podsClient.getPodKeyword();
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Identical tool registration and schema in the HTTP server variant (createMCPServer).
    name: 'get_pod_keyword',
    description: 'Get the pod keyword/password record. Returns the current keyword configuration.',
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {},
    },
  • Tool execution handler in HTTP server's CallToolRequestSchema switch statement.
    case 'get_pod_keyword': {
      const result = await podsClient.getPodKeyword();
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
      };
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns configuration data, which hints at read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'current' means in terms of freshness or caching. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and outcome. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating intent from result for clarity.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and output specifics, leaving gaps that could hinder effective agent invocation without additional context.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the input structure. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable given no parameters exist, aligning with the baseline expectation for such cases.

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 ('Get') and resource ('pod keyword/password record'), specifying it returns configuration data. It distinguishes from siblings like create_pod or delete_pod by focusing on retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_all_pods or get_pod_by_number.

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 like get_pod_by_number or update_pod_keyword. It implies usage for retrieving keyword configuration but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios with sibling tools.

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/ruegreen/CiscoMCPPods'

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