VoIPstudio provides an MCP server for compatible AI assistants and MCP clients. The public bootstrap endpoint is https://mcp.voipstudio.workers.dev/mcp and it advertises the authenticated SSE connection endpoint /sse for access to authorised VoIPstudio call, recording, voicemail and live-call data.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3.8/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of VoIP data: CDRs, call history per number, live calls, recording audio, recordings with transcripts, and voicemails. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent 'get_<resource>' pattern in snake_case, making them predictable and easy to remember.
With 6 tools covering essential read-only operations for a VoIP system (CDRs, live calls, recordings, voicemails, history), the count is well-scoped and each tool serves a clear purpose.
The server covers the main data types for a read-only VoIP API, but lacks a dedicated tool to retrieve a single CDR by ID (though filtering can approximate that). Minor gap but overall sufficient.
get_cdrsAFetch call detail records (CDRs) from VoIPstudio — duration, cost, disposition etc. Supports filtering by any field: {"call_id":"number","duration":"number","id":"number","live_id":"number","is_root":"boolean","root_live_id":"number","parent_live_id":"number","user_id":"number","sip_endpoint_id":"number","server_id":"number","type":"string","calldate":"string","clid":"string","src_id":"string","src_name":"string","src":"string","src_ua":"string","src_codec":"string","dst_id":"string","dst":"string","dst_name":"string","dst_ua":"string","dst_codec":"string","billsec":"number","disposition":"string","destination":"string","context":"string","rate":"number","charge":"number","t_cause":"string","info":"string","labels":"array","metadata":"object","nb_notes":"number","nb_children":"number"}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 1) | |
| sort | No | Sorts results by given property and direction | |
| limit | No | Number of CDRs to fetch | |
| filters | No | Optional filters. Examples: - Date range: [{property:"some_date_propery",operator:"gte",value:"2026-01-01 00:00:00"},{property:"some_date_propery",operator:"lte",value:"2026-12-31 23:59:59"}] - By string: [{property:"some_string_property",operator:"eq",value:"EXPECTED VALUE"}] - Greather than: [{property:"some_number_property",operator:"gt",value:10}] As a 'property' you can use any property from output schema. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| total | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clearly indicates this is a read-only operation (consistent with readOnlyHint=true) and details the filtering capability, including the list of all filterable fields. It does not disclose any destructive behavior, which is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The purpose is stated concisely at the beginning. The description embeds a large JSON object listing all filterable fields, which is structured but adds length. It is front-loaded with the main activity, earning a high score for clarity despite verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the read-only annotation, the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive parameter schema description, the tool description fully covers what the agent needs. No return value explanation is required, and pagination/filtering details are present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for page, sort, limit, and filters. The description adds a comprehensive JSON of field names and types for filtering, providing significant additional context beyond the schema, though the lengthy list may overwhelm.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches call detail records from VoIPstudio, listing specific attributes (duration, cost, disposition) and that it supports filtering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_live_calls or get_history_for_number, which deal with other aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the description mentions filtering and lists fields, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. It lacks 'when to use' or 'when not to use' contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_history_for_numberBList all conversations (call/SMS) with given number on the VoIPstudio account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes | ||
| toDateTime | No | Datetime (YYYY-MM-DD H:i:s) | |
| fromDateTime | No | Datetime (YYYY-MM-DD H:i:s) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| history | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds that it includes both call and SMS, but does not disclose potential behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or sorting behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is direct and contains no superfluous information. The structure is efficient for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks important context such as the significance of the required 'number' parameter (including format), the optional date-range parameters, and potential pagination. While an output schema exists, the description should still guide typical usage, which it does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67% (two of three params have descriptions). The description adds no param-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists conversations (call/SMS) for a given number on the VoIPstudio account. It distinguishes from siblings like get_live_calls or get_cdrs by focusing on history with a specific number, but does not explicitly contrast with get_cdrs which might similarly list calls.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use get_cdrs or get_voicemails. The description merely states functionality without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_live_callsAList all currently active (live) calls on the VoIPstudio account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| total | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the context that calls are 'currently active (live)', but does not disclose any other behaviors like authentication requirements, rate limits, or response size limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise but could benefit from additional context such as typical use cases or response characteristics.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (no parameters) and has an output schema (mentioned in context). The description adequately conveys the purpose. It does not explain pagination or limits, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not add parameter info because none exist, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'currently active (live) calls', and the scope 'on the VoIPstudio account'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cdrs (call detail records) and get_history_for_number (history), which are not about live calls.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for retrieving live calls but offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings (e.g., get_cdrs for past calls) or when not to use it. No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_recording_audioAGet a direct download URL for a call recording MP3 audio file by recording ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Recording ID (the 'id' field from get_recordings results) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | |
| note | Yes | |
| called | No | |
| caller | No | |
| mp3_url | No | |
| duration | No | |
| timestamp | No | |
| auth_header | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating safe, idempotent behavior. The description adds that the tool returns a direct download URL for an MP3 file, specifying the output format. No contradictions or hidden behaviors are missing given the simple nature of the tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word adds value: verb, resource, output format, and input requirement are all included efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter, output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description provides all necessary context. It clarifies the return type (direct download URL) and ties the input to another tool (get_recordings) via schema description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) with context about where to obtain it. The description merely repeats 'by recording ID,' adding no new semantic information beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (get a direct download URL), the resource (call recording MP3 audio file), and the required input (by recording ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_recordings (which lists recordings) by specifying the exact output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after obtaining a recording ID from get_recordings, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. The context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer typical use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_recordingsAFetch call recordings from VoIPstudio with transcripts, summaries and CX scores. Supports filtering/sorting by any field: {"call_id":"number","dst_name":"string","transcript":"string","id":"number","live_id":"number","user_id":"number","sip_endpoint_id":"number","type":"string","src_id":"string","src":"string","src_name":"string","dst_id":"string","dst":"string","context":"string","timestamp":"datetime","caller":"string","called":"string","duration":"number","size":"number","summary":"string","sentiment":"string","metadata":"object","cx_score":"number","transcript_speakers":"array"}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 1) | |
| sort | No | Sorts results by given property and direction | |
| limit | No | Number of recordings to fetch | |
| filters | No | Optional filters. Examples: - Date range: [{property:"some_date_propery",operator:"gte",value:"2026-01-01 00:00:00"},{property:"some_date_propery",operator:"lte",value:"2026-12-31 23:59:59"}] - By string: [{property:"some_string_property",operator:"eq",value:"EXPECTED VALUE"}] - Greather than: [{property:"some_number_property",operator:"gt",value:10}] As a 'property' you can use any property from output schema. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| total | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a read operation ('Fetch'). The description does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination limits, rate limits, or error handling. It adds the filtering capability but lacks depth 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence followed by a structured list of filterable fields. While the list is somewhat lengthy, it is organized and provides immediate context for filtering. Could be more concise but is front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists (as indicated by 'output schema' in context signals and the mention of fields like 'transcript'), the description covers what data is returned and filtering capabilities. It does not detail output format or pagination, but those are in the schema. Annotations provide the safety profile. Adequate for a read tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by listing filterable fields and providing example filter structures, which helps the agent construct filters correctly. The baseline is 3, but the extra examples and field list justify a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource 'call recordings from VoIPstudio' with specific data fields (transcripts, summaries, CX scores). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_recording_audio (audio only) and get_cdrs (CDR data).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for fetching recordings with filtering/sorting but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_recording_audio or get_voicemails. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_voicemailsAFetch voicemail messages from VoIPstudio. Supports filtering by: {"id":"number","live_id":"number","parent_live_id":"number","extension_id":"number","caller":"string","callerid":"string","dialled":"string","origtime":"datetime","duration":"number","folder":"string","is_new":"boolean","transcript":"string"}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 1) | |
| sort | No | Sorts results by given property and direction | |
| limit | No | Number of voicemails to fetch | |
| filters | No | Optional filters. Examples: - Date range: [{property:"some_date_propery",operator:"gte",value:"2026-01-01 00:00:00"},{property:"some_date_propery",operator:"lte",value:"2026-12-31 23:59:59"}] - By string: [{property:"some_string_property",operator:"eq",value:"EXPECTED VALUE"}] - Greather than: [{property:"some_number_property",operator:"gt",value:10}] As a 'property' you can use any property from output schema. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| total | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations set idempotentHint=false, which contradicts the description's 'fetch' semantics (read-only operations should be idempotent). The description does not explain why the tool is not idempotent or mention any side effects. This inconsistency harms transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence followed by a large JSON blob listing filterable fields. While informative, the JSON is verbose and could be summarized (e.g., 'Supports filtering by any property from the output schema'). The structure is adequate but not elegantly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (inferred from parameter descriptions) and readOnlyHint=true, the description omits behavioral details like pagination behavior, default sorting, or result format. It is functional but lacks nuance about what is returned or how to handle large result sets.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described, but the description adds significant value by listing the exact filterable properties (e.g., id, caller, duration) in a JSON object. This goes beyond the schema's generic filter structure, helping agents construct precise filters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Fetch voicemail messages from VoIPstudio', specifying the action (fetch) and resource (voicemails). It also lists supported filter fields, making the tool's scope unambiguous. Sibling tools (e.g., get_recordings, get_cdrs) are distinct, so no confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for fetching voicemail messages but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., when to use get_recordings instead). No when-not or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
