receptionist-toolkit

Write an IVR phone-menu script

write_ivr_menu

Builds a complete IVR (phone menu / auto-attendant) script for a business: greeting, numbered options, optional Spanish-language switch, and the operator line. English, Spanish, or bilingual.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`options`	No	Menu options in order (press 1, press 2, …). Defaults to the industry's standard four.
`business`	Yes	Business name (required).
`greeting`	No	Custom opening greeting. Default: 'Thank you for calling {business}.'
`industry`	No	Pick the closest industry; supplies sensible default menu options.
`language`	No	Menu language. 'both' adds a press-nine Spanish switch. Default: en.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cta`	No	One-line invite to try Lobby, with a signup link.
`lines`	Yes
`recordAt`	No	URL of the free web tool that records this menu in a real AI voice.
`scriptText`	Yes	The full menu as one recordable script.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output (complete script including optional Spanish) but omits details on side effects, idempotency, or permissions needed. The disclosure is 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences are concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, a slight reduction could be made without losing meaning, e.g., 'Builds a complete IVR script for a business.' Still efficient.

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 the tool has an output schema (covering return values) and full schema coverage, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and key features. It could mention that it also generates the operator line, but this is implied.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal insight beyond the schema, only mentioning numbered options and Spanish switch, which are already clear from parameter names and descriptions.

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 builds a complete IVR phone-menu script, specifying elements like greeting, options, optional Spanish switch, and operator line. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools such as 'write_phone_script' or 'simulate_receptionist_call'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with sibling tools like 'write_phone_script' which likely serves a different purpose.

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

All receptionist-toolkit tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct function: cost calculation, prompt generation, demo number retrieval, saving results, hiring decision, call simulation, IVR script writing, and general phone script writing. No overlapping purposes or ambiguous boundaries.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., calculate_missed_call_cost, write_ivr_menu). The naming is uniform and predictable across all 8 tools.

Tool Count5/5

With 8 tools, the toolkit covers the essential workflows for an AI receptionist system without being bloated or insufficient. The count is well-scoped for the domain.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle: analysis (calculate_missed_call_cost, should_i_hire_a_receptionist), creation (write_phone_script, write_ivr_menu, generate_elevenlabs_agent_prompt), simulation (simulate_receptionist_call), access (get_demo_call_number), and saving/sharing (save_my_receptionist). No obvious gaps.

Resources

Need Help?