Skip to main content
Glama

Sipflow

by dev.sipflow

Lint a raw SIP request for RFC compliance

lint_sip_request
Read-only

[cost: free (pure CPU, no network) | read-only, no persistence]

Run RFC 3261 / RFC 3325 / RFC 8224 / RFC 8225 / CTIA BCID compliance checks on a single raw SIP request (typically an INVITE) and return a list of findings.

Catches the failure modes that silently break carrier interop:

  • Two From: headers in one request (RFC 3261 §7.3 / §20.20).

  • Missing CRLF between consecutive header lines (RFC 3261 §7.3).

  • ;tag= (or any other) parameter on P-Asserted-Identity / P-Preferred-Identity (RFC 3325 §9.1).

  • PASSporT orig.tn not matching the From caller TN (RFC 8224 §5).

  • PASSporT dest.tn not matching the To callee TN (RFC 8224 §5).

  • Non-canonical TN inside a PASSporT claim (RFC 8225 §5.2.1).

  • Branded display name in From with no ppt=rcd Identity header (CTIA BCID §5).

Use FIRST when chasing 422 / 400 Bad Request / 484 Invalid FROM on a single INVITE - these usually have a structural cause this tool catches mechanically.

Pair with: parse_sip_message for purely structural checks on any SIP message (responses included); validate_stir_shaken_identity for the cryptographic verdict on Identity headers; search_sip_docs({ sourceType: 'stir-shaken', ... }) to ground the explanation in RFC text.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesRaw SIP request text. Should start with the request line (e.g. `INVITE sip:...@... SIP/2.0`). Headers must be CRLF or LF separated.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds cost-free, no-network, no-persistence details, plus a list of specific failure modes it catches. It does not describe the output format in detail, but that is minor since it returns 'findings'.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose, bulleted failure modes, and usage guidance. It is longer than minimal, but every section carries useful information; there is slight redundancy in the opening but not excessive.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool of this complexity, the description covers input format, typical use cases, and related tools, making it self-sufficient for selection and invocation. The absence of an output schema is offset by the clear statement that it returns a list of findings.

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 description coverage is 100% with a well-described 'text' parameter, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It adds minimal context (typical INVITE use, header separator expectations already in schema) but doesn't go beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: running RFC compliance checks on a single raw SIP request and returning a list of findings. It uses a specific verb (lint) and resource (SIP request), and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming them with complementary roles.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says when to use first (chasing 422/400/484 on a single INVITE) and provides pairing alternatives for different needs (parse_sip_message, validate_stir_shaken_identity, search_sip_docs). This is a clear usage guide with both positive and negative cases.

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

All Sipflow toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes. The only notable overlap is between detect_sip_stack and detect_sip_vendor_from_config, which could cause confusion. Otherwise, each tool covers a unique aspect of SIP debugging.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., compare_sdp_offer_answer, detect_sip_stack, validate_stir_shaken_identity). No mixing of styles.

Tool Count4/5

22 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but each tool serves a specific and necessary function for comprehensive SIP debugging. The count is justified by the server's broad scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of SIP debugging tasks: parsing, diffing, DNS, STIR validation, config review, codec comparison, etc. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated RTP analysis tool), but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources