mcp-cisco-support

get_coverage_summary_by_instance

Retrieve coverage summary for Cisco devices using their instance numbers. Input comma-separated numeric IDs to get coverage information.

Instructions

Get coverage summary by instance numbers. Instance numbers are unique identifiers for devices in Cisco systems. Returns coverage information for specified instances.

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": {
      "instance_numbers": "<instance_numbers>"
    },
    "name": "get_coverage_summary_by_instance"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page_index`	No	Page number for pagination (starts at 1)
`instance_numbers`	Yes	Comma-separated list of instance numbers (e.g., "12345,67890"). Instance numbers are numeric identifiers.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Removedv1.11.1Apr 30, 2026
Addedv1.8.1Apr 30, 2026
Removedv1.7.0Apr 30, 2026
Addedv1.0.0Jan 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that the tool returns coverage information, without disclosing side effects (none expected, but not stated), authentication needs, rate limits, or any behavioral constraints. The description lacks critical safety/behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, no fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description is adequate for a simple lookup but lacks details on return format (no output schema) and pagination behavior. Given the schema covers parameters well, but the tool's full context (e.g., what coverage summary includes) is missing.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context that instance numbers are unique identifiers in Cisco systems, but does not elaborate on page_index (pagination). Overall, the description adds marginal value 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 action ('Get coverage summary') and the resource ('by instance numbers'), differentiating from siblings like 'get_coverage_summary_by_serial' and 'get_coverage_status_by_serial'. It also explains what instance numbers are.

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 usage when instance numbers are available, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., by_serial). No 'when not to use' or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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