Skip to main content
Glama

Sipflow

by dev.sipflow

Minimize a SIP trace

minimize_sip_trace
Read-only

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

Reduce a raw SIP trace to a compact form suitable for sending to an LLM. Preserves SDP bodies and routing/auth/dialog headers; prunes well-known noise (User-Agent, Server, Allow, Accept-, Date, P- informational, etc.).

Expected input format: raw SIP messages separated by blank lines, each starting with a request line (INVITE sip:...@... SIP/2.0) or status line (SIP/2.0 200 OK). PCAP-decoded text from sngrep / ngrep / tcpdump / tshark, syslog with SIP body, sipflow's own export format, or a hand-pasted INVITE/200 dialog all work. Annotation lines like # [timestamp] sender -> receiver or ngrep-style U <ip>:<port> -> <ip>:<port> between blocks are tolerated.

Safe to run on production traces - the input is processed in-memory and is not persisted or sent off-server.

Pair with: detect_sip_stack to identify the vendor, then search_sip_docs(vendor=...) for vendor-grounded analysis; render_sip_ladder to visualize the trace as a Mermaid call-flow ladder; lint_sip_request / parse_sip_message to mechanically validate any single message in the trace.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesRaw SIP trace text. Multiple messages may be concatenated.
maxBytesNoTruncate the minimized output if it exceeds this many bytes (default 200000, matches Sipflow's analyze pipeline).

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, and description adds 'no persistence', 'not sent off-server', 'in-memory', and 'safe on production traces'. Also discloses exactly what is preserved/pruned, going beyond annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with cost/read-only tag and single-sentence summary, but the input format paragraph is fairly long. All content earns its place given the tool's input complexity.

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 no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers input requirements, transformation behavior, safety, and integration with sibling tools. No missing critical context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers both parameters at 100%, and description adds input format details not in schema, such as accepted PCAP/syslog/sngrep formats and tolerated annotation lines. For maxBytes it reiterates truncation purpose but adds pipeline context; minor extra value.

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?

Clearly states it reduces a raw SIP trace to compact form for LLM, preserving SDP and pruning noise. This distinguishes it from siblings like render_sip_ladder and parse_sip_message. The listed pairing also clarifies its niche.

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?

Explicit 'Expected input format' enumerates accepted sources and tolerates annotation lines. Explicitly states when safe and pairs with detect_sip_stack, render_sip_ladder, lint/parse for analysis flow, giving both when-to-use and alternatives.

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