Skip to main content
Glama

Release phone number

spur_release_phone_number
DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently give up one of the user's bought numbers. They may never get it back, and contacts texting it will no longer reach them. Confirm with the user first.

Tool call template

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": {
      "number_id": "<number_id>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "spur_release_phone_number"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmYesSet to true ONLY after the user explicitly approved this exact action in the conversation. Never assume approval.
number_idYesnumber_id from spur_get_texting_setup

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds the human-meaningful consequences the agent must relay: the number is unrecoverable and inbound contacts will silently stop reaching the user. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences: what happens, why it's irreversible, and the required safeguard. Permanence is front-loaded and nothing is padded.

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 annotations cover safety semantics, schema covers parameters, and there is no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs. It stops short of describing post-release state (e.g., what happens to existing conversations or billing), which would round it out.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, including the explicit-approval constraint on 'confirm'. The description adds only the framing that number_id refers to a bought number; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource: 'Permanently give up one of the user's bought numbers' clearly identifies the release/delete action on a purchased number. It implicitly distinguishes from spur_buy_phone_number and spur_set_default_phone_number by the 'give up' framing, but never names a sibling explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Confirm with the user first' gives a mandatory precondition, but there is no guidance on when to choose release vs. keeping the number as a default, or what alternatives exist if the user only wants to stop using it. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources