mcp-cisco-support

get_coverage_summary_by_serial

Retrieve brief coverage status and key dates for up to 75 serial numbers. Use for quick coverage lookups without full details.

Instructions

Get summary coverage information for up to 75 serial numbers. Returns brief coverage status and key dates. Use this for quick coverage lookups without full details.

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": {
      "serial_numbers": "<serial_numbers>"
    },
    "name": "get_coverage_summary_by_serial"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page_index`	No	Page number for pagination (starts at 1)
`serial_numbers`	Yes	Comma-separated list of serial numbers (max 75, e.g., "SAL09232Q0Z,FOC0903N5J9,INM07501EC3")

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

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses read behavior and returns 'brief coverage status and key dates' but lacks details on output format, authentication, or side effects. Adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core function and limit, the second clarifies purpose. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, the description vaguely outlines the return type ('brief coverage status and key dates'). It addresses the input limit and quick-lookup context. While more detail on output or differentiation from sibling tools would improve completeness, it is sufficient for a simple tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 75 serial number limit but does not add new semantic information beyond the schema descriptions for 'serial_numbers' and 'page_index'.

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: 'Get summary coverage information for up to 75 serial numbers' with output specifics. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_coverage_summary_by_instance' by specifying serial numbers as input and from 'get_coverage_status_by_serial' by implying summary vs. status.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Use this for quick coverage lookups without full details', providing when-to-use guidance. It implies not for full detail lookups but does not name alternatives or exclusions directly.

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