phone_get_callOne call with its whole transcript (who said what, and when). Free.
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": {
"call_id": "<call_id>"
},
"name": "phone_get_call"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| call_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that the response includes the whole transcript (who said what, and when) and notes that the tool is free. Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so this additional detail is valuable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise and front-loaded, packing key details into a short phrase. It could be slightly clearer with a complete sentence structure, but it wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool, the description covers the return content (full transcript) and cost (free), but it omits parameter guidance and usage context. Annotations and schema cover safety and structure, but the lack of parameter explanation leaves a gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no description for the single required parameter call_id (0% coverage), and the description does not explain what call_id is or how to obtain it. The parameter is somewhat inferable from its name, but the description adds no meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description indicates retrieval of a single call with its full transcript, distinguishing it from a list operation. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get' and relies on the title for action clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 phone_list_calls or account_get_call. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.