Updates the payload for a Wavix Embeddable widget token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | Token ID | |
| payload | Yes | Arbitrary data to be associated with the token |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ttl | No | Time to live, in seconds. `null` means no expiration. | |
| uuid | Yes | Token ID | |
| payload | No | Arbitrary data associated with the token | |
| sip_trunk | Yes | SIP trunk name |
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 it updates the payload, without explaining whether the payload is replaced or merged, any permission requirements, or error handling behavior.
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 with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to its meaning.
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 description is minimally viable for a simple tool with full schema and output schema, but lacks important context such as whether the payload is wholly replaced or merged, and does not reference token lifecycle or error conditions.
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% with descriptions for both `uuid` and `payload`. The tool description adds no new parameter-related information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 action ('Updates') and the resource ('payload for a Wavix Embeddable widget token'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and 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 description implies usage (updating the payload of an existing token) but does not explicitly say when to use this over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.
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.
