Wavix

cdrs_search

Searches call transcriptions for specific keywords or phrases.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	End date for call search in `YYYY-MM-DD` format.
`from`	Yes	Start date for call search in `YYYY-MM-DD` format.
`page`	Yes	Page number to retrieve.
`type`	Yes	Search transcriptions by call type.
`uuid`	No	Call ID.
`per_page`	Yes	Number of records per page.
`sip_trunk`	No	SIP trunk login to filter outbound calls. Ignored for inbound calls.
`to_search`	No	Destination phone number to filter results. Accepts full or partial number.
`disposition`	No
`from_search`	No	Originating phone number to filter results. Accepts full or partial number.
`min_duration`	No	Minimum call duration in seconds.
`transcription`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'searches' with no mention of pagination, default disposition (only answered calls when omitted), optional nature of the transcription filter, or output behavior. It does not contradict annotations (none exist), but offers little beyond the bare action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified for a tool with 12 parameters and nested objects. It is not a tautology, but it lacks substance needed to guide an agent; the brevity does not compensate for missing critical scope.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, nested transcription filter, output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to convey that transcription filtering is optional and that the tool can serve as a general CDR search with date and call-type filters. The rich schema covers parameters, but the description lacks the contextual glue needed to understand the tool's full role.

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 description coverage is 83%, with detailed descriptions for most parameters including the nested transcription filter. The top-level description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the vague 'keywords or phrases', so the baseline of 3 applies without further value from the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear action ('searches') and a resource ('call transcriptions'), but it mischaracterizes the tool's scope: cdrs_search is a general CDR search with an optional transcription filter, not purely a transcription search. It also omits date-range filtering, pagination, and other filter capabilities, and does not differentiate it from sibling tools like cdrs_list_all or cdrs_transcription_get.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cdrs_list_all or cdrs_transcription_get, and no context about required parameters or typical use cases. The only clue is the name, which is insufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Wavix tools Inspect

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

B3/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are organized by resource with a clear action suffix (create/list/get/update/delete), making most purposes distinct. However, with 122 tools, some pairs like `cdrs_list` vs `cdrs_list_all` or `ten_dlc_brand_campaigns_list` vs `ten_dlc_campaigns_list` could cause confusion without careful reading of descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent `resource_action` snake_case pattern (e.g., `api_keys_create`, `call_control_answer`, `ten_dlc_brands_list`). Verbs are standardized across the set, with only a few exceptions like `check` or `nudge` that still fit the verb-first style. No mixed casing or inconsistent separators.

Tool Count1/5

At 122 tools, this is an extremely large surface that overwhelms the typical MCP agent's ability to select the right tool. Even though the count reflects the full Wavix API, the sheer number far exceeds the 50+ threshold for 'extreme mismatch' and is impractical for most use cases.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a broad range of communications features: numbers, calls, messages, billing, CDRs, sub-accounts, 10DLC compliance, speech analytics, and WebRTC. Missing operations like `sub_accounts_delete` or a 2FA service management endpoint are minor gaps that can be worked around via portal or other tools, but overall lifecycle coverage is strong.

cdrs_search

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources