Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-cisco-support

mcp-cisco-support

by sieteunoseis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Get Bug Details

get_bug_details

Retrieve detailed information for up to five Cisco bug IDs at once.

Instructions

Get details for up to 5 specific bug IDs

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": {
      "bug_ids": "<bug_ids>"
    },
    "name": "get_bug_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bug_idsYesComma-separated list of bug IDs (max 5)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Removedv1.11.1
  2. Addedv1.8.1
  3. Removedv1.7.0
  4. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'get details' and the limit of 5 IDs, without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, rate limits, or what 'details' includes. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. However, some might argue it is under-specified, but it is concise and to the point.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the core functionality but lacks context on return format, error handling, or behavior when IDs are invalid. It could be more complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for a single parameter, the baseline is 3. The description adds 'up to 5', which is already present in the schema's parameter description, so no significant additional meaning 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving details for specific bug IDs. It uses a specific verb 'Get details' and resource 'bug IDs', and the sibling tools are primarily search-based, making this tool distinct as a direct retrieval by ID.

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 implies use when you have specific bug IDs but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist. The context of sibling search tools suggests differentiation, but the description lacks explicit usage boundaries.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools