Country Calling Codes
Server Details
Country calling codes, ISO codes, E.164 dial codes, regions, trunk prefixes, and NANP area codes.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: one formats phone numbers, the other looks up country codes. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: format_international_phone_number and lookup_country_calling_code.
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but well-scoped for its purpose. The count is slightly low but still reasonable for a focused utility.
The server covers the core operations: looking up codes and formatting numbers. Missing validation or parsing, but no critical gaps for its stated purpose.
Available Tools
2 toolsformat_international_phone_numberFormat International Phone NumberARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Normalize a phone number into a plausible international format using reviewed country-specific rules. Processing is ephemeral. This tool does not query carriers, HLR/HSS, MNP databases, or live subscribers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| countryCode | No | Optional ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country context, such as GB. | |
| phoneNumber | Yes | Phone number to format. It is processed ephemerally and is not stored. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| meta | Yes | |
| result | Yes | |
| limitations | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating processing is ephemeral and listing what queries are NOT performed. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, and description complements perfectly without contradiction.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by clarifying limitations. No wasted words, every sentence adds value.
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 tool's simplicity, high schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, behavior, and limitations. No obvious gaps for an agent to misuse the 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description only reiterates the ephemeral nature already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as description adds no new parameter-level meaning.
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 the tool normalizes phone numbers into international format using country-specific rules. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tool lookup_country_calling_code by focusing on formatting rather than lookup.
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?
Description explicitly states what the tool does not do (no carrier queries, HLR, etc.), providing context for when not to use it. However, it lacks explicit 'use this when...' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lookup_country_calling_codeLookup Country Calling CodeBRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Look up international country calling codes by free text, ISO code, dial code, or region. Optionally return reviewed, source-linked dialing examples. This tool does not verify live subscriber numbers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Free-text search, such as "United Kingdom", "London", or "AUS". | |
| code | No | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 or alpha-3 code, such as GB or GBR. | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of countries to return. | |
| region | No | Optional region filter. | |
| dialCode | No | Calling code with or without plus sign, such as +44 or 44. | |
| includeExamples | No | When true, include reviewed safe mobile/landline patterns, transformation rules, source URLs, and lastVerified metadata. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| meta | Yes | |
| query | Yes | |
| countries | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the core functionality and input types, omitting important details such as whether the tool is read-only, how exact/fuzzy matching works, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or behavior on no results. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate side effects or constraints.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists all search parameters without extraneous words. Every element serves a clear function, making it easy 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 tool has no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining the return format or typical response structure. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a list of countries with calling codes), error handling, or completeness. For a simple lookup, this omission limits the agent's ability to use the output correctly.
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?
Input schema descriptions are comprehensive (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond summarizing the search methods. It does not provide new semantic nuance or format hints beyond what the schema already states. Baseline score of 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 the tool's verb (look up) and resource (international country calling codes), and enumerates the search methods (free text, ISO code, dial code, region). It is specific and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
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 when to use it (when a country calling code is needed) but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives. Given no sibling tools, the lack of explicit guidance is acceptable but not exemplary, as it doesn't help the agent decide between this and other potential tools in a broader context.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!