This connector has been replaced by Reflecto.
find_my_phoneRing the user's phone at full volume for up to 60 seconds, even if it's on silent or Do Not Disturb. Use this when the user asks to locate or ring their phone. Fire-and-forget: the server can't confirm the phone actually rang, only that the ring request was sent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| warnings | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a critical behavioral limitation: the operation is fire-and-forget and the server cannot confirm the phone actually rang, only that the request was sent. It also adds meaningful side-effect details like volume, duration, and bypassing silent/DND, which go beyond what annotations provide.
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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action, then gives the intended use case, then the key limitation. Every sentence earns its place and the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.
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 parameterless tool with an output schema and helpful annotations, the description covers the action, the trigger condition, and the main caveat about confirmability. Nothing essential for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly 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 tool has no parameters, so the input schema is trivially fully covered. The description adds no unnecessary parameter detail, and none is needed, so the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.
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: ring the user's phone. It adds precise constraints (full volume, up to 60 seconds, works on silent/DND) and explicitly frames the use case, making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like send_notification or list_devices.
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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks to locate or ring their phone,' giving clear guidance on when to invoke it. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for a tool with no parameters.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action: scheduling vs cancelling reminders, pushing vs ringing a phone, sending vs receiving files/shared items, and requesting vs polling approvals. The only close pair, send_notification and remind_me, is clearly separated by immediacy vs future scheduling, and the descriptions reinforce the boundary.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: cancel_reminder, check_reply, get_shared_items, list_devices, request_approval, send_file, send_notification. Minor possessive forms like find_my_phone and remind_me still fit the imperative verb-first style without creating confusion.
Nine tools is well within the ideal range and each one earns its place in a personal-device integration server. The surface covers notifications, reminders, approvals, shared items, file delivery, device discovery, and phone location without redundant or filler tools.
Core workflows are covered: reminders can be scheduled and cancelled, approvals can be requested and polled, notifications can be sent, and shared items can be read incrementally. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to cancel a pending approval and no update mechanism for reminders, but these are workable and the server is explicitly stateless about some of them.