Skip to main content
Glama

Sipflow

by dev.sipflow

Troubleshoot a SIP response code (RAG, vendor-aware)

troubleshoot_response_code
Read-only

[cost: rag (one embed + one vector search) | read-only, network: outbound to embed model only | rate-limited per IP]

Like lookup_response_code but augmented: returns the static RFC entry PLUS the top vendor-specific RAG hits for the exact code (and any free-text context the user pasted). When the static entry carries known vendor-specific reason-phrase variants (e.g. 484 + opensips → 'Invalid FROM' from parse_from.c), those phrases are folded into the embed query so the right vendor docs surface.

Use when the user asks 'why did reject this with ?' and you want vendor-grounded common causes, not just the RFC text. Especially helpful for fax-rejection paths - 488 / 415 / 606 on a T.38 reinvite (m=image udptl t38) is one of the most common 488 variants and the tool surfaces FreeSWITCH mod_spandsp / Cisco CUBE / AudioCodes T.38 docs alongside the RFC text.

Pair with: lookup_response_code first (cheaper); lint_sip_request when the code is 4xx and they have the offending request; compare_sdp_offer_answer for 488/415 caused by a T.38 reinvite SDP mismatch; validate_stir_shaken_identity when the code is 438; stir_attestation_explainer for STIR-shaped codes (428/436/437/438/608); dns_diagnose_sip_target when the code is 503 / 408 and routing is suspect.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesSIP response code (e.g. 488, 503, 438).
contextNoOptional free-text context: a snippet of the trace, the Reason header, the Warning header, or a one-line description of what the user was trying to do.
vendorHintNoVendor slug to filter the RAG search (e.g. "kamailio", "freeswitch", "twilio"). Strongly recommended.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses cost (rag: one embed + one vector search), read-only nature, outbound network only to embed model, rate-limited per IP, and how vendor-specific reason phrases are folded into the embed query. No contradiction with 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 structured with a leading cost/read-only line, a core behavior sentence, a use-case paragraph, and a pairing list. Every sentence adds distinct value; length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return behavior, which it does (static RFC entry plus RAG hits). It also covers cost, network, rate limits, use cases, and pairings. Minor gap: no explicit output format or number of hits, but otherwise comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds some context on how vendorHint and context influence the RAG query (folded into embed), but mostly reinforces the schema's existing semantics, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns the static RFC entry plus vendor-specific RAG hits for a SIP response code, and distinguishes it from sibling `lookup_response_code` by highlighting the augmented RAG capability and the 'why did <vendor> reject this' use case.

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 ('Use when the user asks why did <vendor> reject this with <code>?') and provides alternatives and pairings with specific sibling tools for different situations (e.g., `lint_sip_request` for 4xx, `compare_sdp_offer_answer` for T.38 reinvite SDP mismatch).

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