get_verified_phoneFetch one verified phone number by id, from list_verified_phones.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "get_verified_phone"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious read operation—it does not mention not-found behavior, required permissions, or response characteristics.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. For a one-parameter getter, this is an appropriately compact structure.
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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and id source. It still leaves minor gaps around error behavior and what happens when the id does not resolve to a verified phone.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that the single 'id' parameter comes from list_verified_phones, which is useful provenance, but it does not describe format or handling of invalid ids beyond what the schema already constrains.
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 a specific verb and resource: fetch one verified phone number by id. It also names list_verified_phones as the source, which helps distinguish it from the list operation, though it does not explicitly contrast with other getter siblings such as get_verified_email.
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 phrase 'from list_verified_phones' implies the id should come from that list tool, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus list_verified_phones or other alternatives, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.
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.