Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Telerivet

by com.telerivet
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_route_options

Read-only

Returns available messaging route/channel options to help choose a provider and channel type, or details about an existing route type: geographic availability, use cases, compliance and registration requirements, billing modes (internal/Telerivet-managed vs external/BYOC), setup timelines, and per-message pricing. Without arguments, returns a compact index of all route types; use 'country' to filter by availability and get full details including pricing, or use 'phone_type' for full details on a specific route type.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_route_options"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countryNoISO 2-letter country code to filter by geographic availability and include pricing (e.g. US, GB, KE)
use_caseNoFilter by intended use case
phone_typeNoRoute type identifier for full details (same as the phone_type property on a phone/basic route)
channel_typeNoFilter by channel/message type

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the response shape differs by invocation mode (compact index vs full details including pricing), which an agent cannot infer from annotations alone. Auth, rate limits, and result size are unstated but minor for a read-only reference lookup.

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, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the invocation modes; the long feature list is dense but earns its place by telling the agent what data is available. Slightly run-on, but no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so for the index and detail modes, including pricing. It does not clarify what 'use_case' and 'channel_type' change about the output or whether they can be combined with 'country', which leaves a modest ambiguity for a 4-parameter tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a step up by explaining the mode-dependent effect of parameters — 'country' both filters and triggers full detail/pricing output, and 'phone_type' switches to single-route detail. The roles of 'use_case' and 'channel_type' are left entirely to the schema, which is a small gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Returns available messaging route/channel options') and enumerates the exact content returned: geographic availability, use cases, compliance/registration requirements, billing modes, setup timelines, and per-message pricing. It also covers the second mode (details about an existing route type), so an agent can tell precisely what this tool is for.

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?

It gives explicit calling patterns: no arguments yields a compact index, 'country' filters and returns full details with pricing, 'phone_type' returns full details for a specific route. What's missing is guidance on when to prefer 'use_case' or 'channel_type' filtering and any explicit exclusion or alternative tool.

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

All Telerivet 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