Skip to main content
Glama

Sipflow

by dev.sipflow

Submit feedback about Sipflow tools, docs, or coverage

submit_sipflow_feedback

[cost: write (single MongoDB row) | rate-limited per IP: 3/min, 20/day]

Send the Sipflow team feedback when something doesn't work, a vendor or RFC isn't covered, or a tool produced a wrong/incomplete answer. Categories:

  • docs_gap: search_sip_docs returned nothing useful, vendor missing, coverage incomplete

  • tool_bug: a tool errored, returned garbage, or behaved unexpectedly on a real input

  • wrong_answer: the answer it produced was incorrect for the SIP/VoIP question asked

  • feature_request: a new tool, dataset, or behavior the user wants

  • general: anything else

PRIVACY CONTRACT (MUST FOLLOW):

  1. Use this tool only when the user explicitly asks to send feedback, OR when you have completed the user's primary task and there is a clear, actionable gap worth reporting.

  2. ALWAYS show the user the exact summary + details + other fields you plan to send and wait for an explicit yes before calling this tool. Set userConsent: true only after that confirmation.

  3. NEVER include raw SIP traces, INVITE/REGISTER bodies, SDP, phone numbers, IP addresses, Call-IDs, or any other PII. Summarize in your own words instead. The server runs a sanitizer as a backstop, but you are the first line of defense.

  4. The contact field is optional and may only be filled when the user explicitly provides an email and asks you to include it.

  5. The traceExcerpt field is optional and accepts a sanitized SIP message text block (Via/From/To/Call-ID, optional minimal SDP) the user explicitly approved attaching. Pipe minimize_sip_trace output here, NEVER raw INVITE / REGISTER bodies or full pcap text. Phone numbers, IPs, and emails are scrubbed server-side as a backstop; the agent must still summarize / minimize first. The same userConsent: true covers both the text fields and the excerpt - if the user wants the excerpt included you must show it to them before sending.

The tool returns a ticket id (fb_xxxxxxxx) and stores one anonymous row keyed by your daily-rotating IP hash (no raw IP, no account). Rate-limited at 3/min and 20/day per IP hash.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contactNoOptional email the user can be reached at. Only include when the user explicitly provides one and asks you to attach it.
detailsNoLonger description: what the user was trying to do, what happened, what they expected. PII-free.
summaryYesShort one-line description of the feedback. Will be shown to humans triaging. PII-free.
categoryYesBucket. Use docs_gap for missing RAG coverage, tool_bug for broken behavior, wrong_answer for incorrect output, feature_request for new asks, general for anything else.
relatedToolNoName of the Sipflow MCP tool the feedback relates to, if any (e.g. `search_sip_docs`, `troubleshoot_response_code`).
userConsentYesMUST be true. Set this only after you have shown the user the exact payload above (including any `traceExcerpt`) and they have confirmed they want it sent.
relatedQueryNoThe search query / question that failed or returned poor results. PII-free.
traceExcerptNoOptional sanitized SIP message text the user explicitly approved attaching. Use the output of `minimize_sip_trace` (or a hand-scrubbed Via/From/To/Call-ID/CSeq block, optionally with minimal SDP). NEVER paste raw INVITE / REGISTER bodies, full pcap text, or anything containing phone numbers / IPs / Call-IDs you have not already redacted. The server runs a backstop sanitizer that redacts phones, IPs, and emails. Hard cap 32 kB.
vendorOrTopicNoVendor slug, RFC number, or topic the feedback relates to (e.g. 'freeswitch', 'RFC 3261', 'fax-over-IP').

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond annotations by disclosing cost ('write (single MongoDB row)'), rate limits ('3/min, 20/day per IP hash'), storage behavior ('anonymous row keyed by daily-rotating IP hash'), return value ('ticket id (fb_xxxxxxxx)'), and a server-side sanitizer backstop. It also details the privacy contract, including when userConsent is required. This is rich behavioral context that the annotations alone ('readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: false') do not convey.

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 long but every section earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose and cost/rate line, then uses structured headers, numbered privacy rules, and bullet-point categories. The layout makes complex consent requirements easy to follow, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (ticket id), rate limits, data retention, category taxonomy, and the step-by-step consent workflow. It covers all operational and safety aspects an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly, making it exceptionally complete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although the schema covers 100% of parameters, the description adds meaningfully to parameter semantics. For example, it instructs to 'Pipe minimize_sip_trace output here' for traceExcerpt, mandates that userConsent 'must be set only after you have shown the user the exact payload above and they have confirmed', and restricts contact to when 'the user explicitly provides an email and asks to include it'. These operational guidelines exceed the schema descriptions and are essential for correct usage.

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 opens with 'Send the Sipflow team feedback when something doesn't work, a vendor or RFC isn't covered, or a tool produced a wrong/incomplete answer' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes this tool from all sibling analysis tools by being the only feedback submission tool, and enumerates feedback categories to further clarify intent.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: only when the user explicitly asks to send feedback, or after completing the primary task with a clear actionable gap. It also provides category selection criteria (docs_gap, tool_bug, wrong_answer, feature_request, general) and includes explicit exclusions such as not including raw PII and waiting for consent. This is comprehensive guidance with no ambiguity.

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