List calls with pagination and optional assistant filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| per_page | No | ||
| assistant_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| data | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| total | No | ||
| per_page | No | ||
| last_page | No | ||
| current_page | No | ||
| next_page_url | No | ||
| prev_page_url | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds pagination and filtering context, but does not disclose sorting, limits, or return format behavior beyond that.
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 that immediately conveys the action and key features. No unnecessary words.
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 (handles return values) and strong annotations, the description is largely adequate for a simple list tool. However, it lacks details on sorting or empty results.
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 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'pagination' and 'optional assistant filter' which loosely map to page/per_page and assistant_id, but no details on defaults, constraints, or behavior are provided.
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 lists calls with pagination and optional assistant filter, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from get_call (singular) but does not explicitly differentiate from other 'list_' sibling tools.
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?
Usage is implied (use when you need to list calls), but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are mentioned. The description does not guide the agent away from other list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resources and actions clearly (e.g., create_assistant vs create_campaign). However, there is some overlap like get_outbound_assistants vs get_assistants and list_all_phone_numbers vs get_phone_numbers, causing minor ambiguity.
Tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., create_document, delete_label, get_voices). Only minor deviations exist, such as generate_ai_reply and list_all_phone_numbers, but overall the pattern is maintained.
With 75 tools, the server is excessively large. Although the domain is broad (assistants, calls, messaging, etc.), the number of tools makes it difficult for agents to navigate and select the correct one, reducing coherence.
The tool set covers CRUD operations for most resources, plus webhooks, AI replies, and reference data fetching. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete_conversation, no attach phone number to assistant), but the surface is largely comprehensive for the platform's purpose.
