Get the schema for an endpoint in the Telnyx TypeScript API. You can use the schema returned by this tool to invoke an endpoint with the invoke_api_endpoint tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoint | Yes | The name of the endpoint to get the schema for. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds the purpose of the returned schema (for invocation) but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as error cases or output format specifics. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but minimal.
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 two sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and the second provides practical usage. No redundant wording.
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, read-only, one-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns and how to use it in conjunction with invoke_api_endpoint, covering the intended workflow.
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 only parameter 'endpoint' has 100% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states 'Get the schema for an endpoint in the Telnyx TypeScript API' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly references the invoke_api_endpoint tool, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_api_endpoints and invoke_api_endpoint.
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?
The description gives clear usage context by stating the schema can be used to invoke an endpoint with invoke_api_endpoint. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it with list_api_endpoints.
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.
All tools have distinct purposes: the first three are for inspecting and invoking the Telnyx API endpoints, while the last three launch separate MCP apps for specific domains. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Tool names follow two consistent patterns: 'verb_api_endpoint' for API operations and 'open_<app_name>' for launching apps. While patterns differ, they are each internally consistent and clearly indicate the tool's category.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped. The API exploration tools cover essential operations (list, schema, invoke), and the app launcher tools provide access to specialized features without overloading the tool list.
The server provides a complete surface for its purpose: full API endpoint discovery and invocation, plus launching dedicated apps for number intelligence, usage/cost analysis, and voice monitoring. No obvious gaps.
