Releases phone numbers back to stock.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | No | List of phone number IDs to release. | |
| dids | No | List of phone numbers to release. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('releases phone numbers back to stock') but does not mention whether the operation is permanent, if there are prerequisites (e.g., ownership, not in use), or any side effects (e.g., affecting active calls or billing). This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It contains no fluff or redundant information, earning a perfect score for structure.
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 delete/release tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks important context such as reversibility or validation behavior. The presence of an output schema and complete parameter descriptions offset some gaps, but because no annotations exist, the description alone does not fully cover the behavioral context expected for a destructive operation.
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 100%, with both 'ids' and 'dids' having clear descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles parameter semantics.
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 the specific verb 'releases' with a clear resource ('phone numbers') and context ('back to stock'), making it obvious what the tool does. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like my_numbers_update (changes settings) and my_numbers_list (lists numbers).
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 its use case through the verb 'releases' but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. For example, it does not say 'Use this only when you want to permanently return numbers' or contrast with my_numbers_update. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
