Returns a list of 2FA verifications. Filter by service or date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | End date in `YYYY-MM-DD` format. | |
| from | Yes | Start date in `YYYY-MM-DD` format. | |
| service_id | Yes | 2FA Service ID. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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. It states the action (returns a list) and filtering options, but does not mention whether results are paginated, ordered, require specific permissions, or how sessions vs. verifications relate. There is no disclosure of side effects (it appears read-only), but the agent is left without safety or behavior context.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains zero filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and filtering capability.
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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and filtering. However, it lacks context regarding how this list relates to other 2FA tools (e.g., events, verification status) and does not mention pagination or result ordering, which could be important for a list 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?
The input schema already documents all three required parameters with descriptions and formats (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that filtering is by service or date, which somewhat maps to the parameters but does not enhance understanding beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 returns a list of 2FA verifications, which matches the name and adds the filtering capability by service or date. It distinguishes the operation from other 2FA tools (e.g., two_fa_verification_create) as a read-only list action, though it does not explicitly differentiate from two_fa_events_list.
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 phrase 'Filter by service or date' implies the tool is intended for listing 2FA verifications with optional filters, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like two_fa_events_list or two_fa_verification_check. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
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.
