Skip to main content
Glama

Sipflow

by dev.sipflow

Ground-truth review of a SIP/VoIP config or repo file

review_sip_config
Read-only

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

Use this when the user asks 'review my config' or attaches a kamailio.cfg, sip.conf, pjsip.conf, FreeSWITCH XML profile, opensips.cfg, res_fax.conf / udptl.conf / spandsp.conf (fax-relay tuning), or a SIP-shaped source file from a repo. This tool:

  1. Detects the vendor from filename + structural signatures (loadmodule, route blocks, [transport-*] sections, <profile name=>, KEMI calls).

  2. Extracts a structured outline: loaded modules, modparams, listen lines, route blocks, profiles, gateways, dialplan extensions.

  3. Surfaces risk flags - e.g. websocket loaded without TLS, nathelper without rtpengine, chan_sip used in modern Asterisk, AND the Kamailio/OpenSIPS lump-vs-subst race (subst('/^From:.../...') colliding with KSR.hdr.append/remove or uac_replace_* or append_hf/remove_hf on the same header - corrupts the buffer at serialization).

  4. Returns a list of suggestedQueries for search_sip_docs so you can ground the actual review in vendor docs.

Pair with: one or more search_sip_docs calls (cite returned source_url values verbatim instead of recalling vendor behavior from memory); webrtc_sip_checklist when the config is a WebRTC ↔ SIP bridge.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesThe full config blob (or a representative excerpt). UTF-8 plaintext.
vendorHintNoSkip auto-detection and force a specific vendor. Use when the heuristics return low confidence or the wrong vendor.
filenameHintNoOptional filename or path (e.g. "kamailio.cfg", "etc/asterisk/pjsip.conf", "sofia/external.xml"). Strongly improves vendor detection.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses additional behavioral traits: 'pure CPU, no network', free cost, a four-step internal workflow, and the specific high-risk race condition it flags (lump-vs-subst). It also explains that it returns suggestedQueries for grounding reviews in vendor docs, which is significant behavioral context not present in annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear trigger statement, a numbered workflow, and a pairing note. Every sentence contributes operational or contextual value: cost/read-only status, when to use, what the tool does, and how to integrate with sibling tools. No filler or redundancy.

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 complex config-review tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly conveys what the user can expect: a structured outline of loaded modules/routes/profiles, risk flags with specific examples, and a list of suggestedQueries. It also covers the filenameHint/vendorHint usage context through the detection step and pairing guidance. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret results.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including descriptions for text, vendorHint, and filenameHint. The description adds minimal parameter-specific value beyond schema, though step 1 references filename+structural signatures aligning with filenameHint. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding.

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 this tool reviews SIP/VoIP config files, enumerates specific file types and vendors, and explicitly lists what it does (detect vendor, extract outline, surface risk flags, return suggestedQueries). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like detect_sip_vendor_from_config by focusing on full config review, not just vendor detection.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit trigger phrases ('review my config') and example files, and recommends pairing with search_sip_docs and webrtc_sip_checklist for specific cases. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or contrast with the highly similar detect_sip_vendor_from_config sibling, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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