Updates inbound call routing for phone numbers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | List of phone number IDs to update. | |
| destinations | Yes | Inbound call destinations to apply. | |
| sms_relay_url | Yes | Callback URL for inbound SMS and MMS messages. |
| 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 only states that routing is updated, without revealing whether updates replace existing destinations, whether SMS relay URL is affected, or any side effects. The mutation is implied but not elaborated.
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 wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded, but the brevity also omits useful context that could be structured or expanded.
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?
Even though an output schema exists, the description is under-specified for a mutation tool with three required parameters. It does not address whether this is an additive or replacing update, the relationship between destinations and sms_relay_url, or any edge-case behavior. The agent would need to inspect the schema deeply to understand semantics.
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%, and parameter descriptions are detailed (e.g., destination, priority, transport enum), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra meaning about how parameters interrelate or their combined effect, so the 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 uses a specific verb 'Updates' and a specific resource 'inbound call routing for phone numbers,' clearly conveying the tool's scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like my_numbers_sms_update (SMS routing) and my_numbers_update (general number settings), though it does not name them explicitly.
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, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or the relationship to related updates. The description only states the action without context, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.
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.
