Open the Telnyx Voice Monitor MCP App for observing and troubleshooting voice traffic.
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": "open_voice_monitor"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | No | Optional no-op app opener action; omit to open the app. | open |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / actionAdded value: +{
+ "default": "open",
+ "description": "Optional no-op app opener action; omit to open the app.",
+ "enum": [
+ "open"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description's 'open' and 'observing' align with these but add no further behavioral traits like authentication needs, return format, or UI behavior. It adds context that the app is for voice traffic, which is purpose rather than behavior.
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 a single concise sentence of 14 words, front-loading the verb 'Open' and the specific app name. Every word contributes to clarity, with no filler or repetition.
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 low-complexity tool with one optional no-op parameter and no output schema, the description fully conveys its purpose and context. It distinguishes from siblings and aligns with annotations, so nothing critical is missing.
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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single optional parameter 'action', including its enum, default, and description. The tool description does not mention parameters, but the schema handles it fully, so the baseline of 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 uses 'Open' as a specific verb, names the exact resource 'Telnyx Voice Monitor MCP App', and states the purpose 'observing and troubleshooting voice traffic'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like open_number_intelligence and open_usage_cost_explorer.
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 clearly implies the tool is for voice traffic monitoring/troubleshooting, giving a clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks exclusions.
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.