Skip to main content
Glama

Sipflow

by dev.sipflow

Canonical SIP scenario as a Mermaid ladder

sip_ladder_example
Read-only

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

Return a hand-curated SIP scenario as a Mermaid sequenceDiagram plus a bullet list of step-by-step explanations with RFC references. Use this when the user asks 'show me what X looks like' and you don't have a real trace handy.

Available scenarios: basic-call, auth-challenge, cancel-before-answer, early-media, hold-resume, refer-blind, proxy-with-record-route, shaken-attested-invite, bye-glare, redirect-302.

Pair with: search_sip_docs for vendor-specific quirks of the scenario; render_sip_ladder if the user does have a real trace.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
verboseNoAlso include the scenario's long Markdown explanation. Useful when the LLM is going to teach the user; off by default to keep responses small.
scenarioYesWhich scenario to render. Valid ids: basic-call, auth-challenge, cancel-before-answer, early-media, hold-resume, refer-blind, proxy-with-record-route, shaken-attested-invite, bye-glare, redirect-302.
actorNamesNoOverride the default actor display names (Alice/Bob/Proxy). Maps to the first/second/third lane in left-to-right order.
includeExplanationNoAppend a bulleted **Notes** section with RFC references for each step.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: '[cost: free (pure CPU, no network) | read-only]' and notes it is hand-curated. This gives the agent useful constraints about side effects and resource usage without contradicting 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 compact and well-structured. It front-loads cost/read-only info, states the output, gives usage context, lists scenarios, and pairs with sibling tools—all in a few sentences with zero fluff.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (Mermaid sequenceDiagram + bullet list with RFC references). It covers usage scenarios, available options, and alternatives. Combined with the rich input schema, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds the list of available scenarios (also in the enum) but does not provide substantial extra meaning for any parameter. Baseline 3 applies; schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return a hand-curated SIP scenario as a Mermaid sequenceDiagram plus a bullet list of step-by-step explanations with RFC references.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly pairing with render_sip_ladder for real traces and search_sip_docs for vendor quirks.

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 usage guidance is provided: 'Use this when the user asks "show me what X looks like" and you don't have a real trace handy.' It also names alternatives and when to use them, giving clear when/when-not direction.

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