GadgetHumans API Hub

phone_parse

Parse a phone number into country code, national number, E.164 and national formats, and report whether the length is plausible. Pure CPU, instant.

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": {
      "phone": "<phone>"
    },
    "name": "phone_parse"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`phone`	Yes	Phone number
`country`	No	ISO country hint such as IE or US

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 8, 2026
RemovedNov 6, 2026

Changed3 schema fields changedNov 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / country

Added value: +{
+  "description": "ISO country hint such as IE or US",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / phone

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Phone number",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "phone"
+]
```

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: 'Pure CPU, instant' tells the agent there is no network call, no latency cost, no rate limit and no external dependency, and the plausibility framing discloses that validation is heuristic rather than strict. It does not say what happens on unparseable input, on an unknown country hint, or whether the country argument is silently ignored when supplied.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence stating the transformation and its outputs, closed by a short clause on cost class. Nothing is repeated from the schema and no sentence is padding.

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?

For a two-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description does the essential job of enumerating return fields, which the agent would otherwise have to guess. It falls short only on edge-case behavior for malformed input or a missing/incorrect country hint.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the correct baseline is 3. The description mentions 'country code' only as an output field, adding nothing about how the 'country' hint changes parsing behavior or what the default is when it is omitted.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (parse a phone number) and enumerates the concrete outputs: country code, national number, E.164, national format, plus a plausibility check. No sibling tool overlaps this function, so an agent can route to it unambiguously from the name plus first clause alone.

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 phrase 'report whether the length is plausible' implicitly signals this is a formatting/parse step rather than an authoritative validation service, which is useful, but the description never states when to prefer this over a validation tool (e.g. iban_validate-style siblings) or when it should not be relied on. Usage is inferable but never explicit.

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

All GadgetHumans API Hub tools Inspect

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.