Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

esimgomobile — Travel eSIM Tools

by com.esimgomobile
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Activation Details Format Check

check_activation_details_format
Read-onlyIdempotent

Matches the free website details check. Checks email and order-reference formats only. Does not verify ownership, retrieve activation codes, generate QR codes or send email. Contact support for a reissue.

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": {
      "email": "<email>",
      "order_reference": "<order_reference>"
    },
    "name": "check_activation_details_format"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYes
order_referenceYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cardYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating what the check does not do (no ownership verification, no code retrieval, no QR generation, no email), which prevents an agent from over-trusting the result. It doesn't state what the response communicates about a failed format, though the output schema exists.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by scope boundaries and a fallback. Every clause carries information. The opening reference to 'the free website details check' is slightly opaque to an agent lacking that context, but it does convey parity.

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?

An output schema is present, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description's distinctive contribution, the explicit negative scope, fills the main gap. The only shortfall is the absent order_reference format pattern, which matters for a format validator.

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 description coverage is 0%: only maxLength is specified for both strings, with no format pattern guidance. The description compensates partially by naming both inputs and stating they are format-checked rather than ownership-verified, but it never reveals what constitutes a valid order_reference, so an agent cannot predict validation outcomes.

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 gives a specific verb and scope: 'Checks email and order-reference formats only.' The word 'only' plus the negative scope list distinguishes it from the retrieval/reissue tools in the sibling set (troubleshoot_esim, get_installation_guide) without naming them. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

'Matches the free website details check' establishes when it applies (pre-submission parity with the web flow), and 'Contact support for a reissue' gives a next step on failure. Usage is implied rather than stated with an explicit 'use this when X, not Y' rule, so an agent must infer the trigger condition.

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

All esimgomobile — Travel eSIM Tools toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources