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

mcp-cisco-support

by sieteunoseis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_case_details

Retrieve comprehensive case details including status, severity, and description for a single Cisco support case ID.

Instructions

Get detailed information for a single case ID. Returns comprehensive case information including status, severity, description, and all case attributes.

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": {
      "case_id": "<case_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_case_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
case_idYesSingle case ID to get details for (e.g., "123456789")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Removedv1.11.1
  2. Addedv1.8.1
  3. Removedv1.7.0
  4. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose safety information (read-only implied but not explicit), rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness. The description only states that it 'returns comprehensive case information,' which is insufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no extraneous words. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

The tool has a single simple parameter and no output schema. The description lists some return fields but does not provide a complete picture of what to expect. Given the number of siblings, more differentiation and detail would improve completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%; the parameter case_id is fully described in the schema. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond summarizing the schema. Baseline 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 identifies the tool's action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('single case ID'), and lists returned fields (status, severity, etc.). However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_case_summary or get_bug_details.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_case_summary or search_cases_by_*. The description does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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