SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

Parses an international phone number, checks it against

agent_intel_phone_carrier_hlr_lookup

Read-only

Parses an international phone number (E.164), checks it against Google's open libphonenumber metadata, and returns the country, line type (mobile, fixed line, fixed-or-mobile, VoIP, toll free, premium, pager and more), E.164/international/national formats and the carrier that the number range was originally allocated to. Not a live HLR query: ported numbers keep the original carrier and active/inactive status is not checked. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "number": "<number>"
    },
    "name": "agent_intel_phone_carrier_hlr_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`number`	Yes	Phone number in international form with country code, e.g. +905321234567 or 00442079460000

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`e164`	No
`note`	No
`input`	No
`valid`	No
`region`	No
`source`	No
`carrier`	No
`formats`	No
`lineType`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`carrierPrefix`	No
`nationalNumber`	No
`numberPortability`	No
`countryCallingCode`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare read-only and open-world; the description adds the parts the agent actually needs: the data is offline libphonenumber metadata rather than a live network query, and the result is a historical allocation not current assignment. It also discloses the payment mechanism and cost ($0.002 USDC via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc) and that failed calls are free, which materially affects whether an agent should attempt the call.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three tight sentences: what it does first, the limitation second, the cost last. Every clause carries information and the caveat about non-live lookup is placed before the pricing detail, so the agent hits the caveat early.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need no further explanation, and the description still sketches them (country, line type, formats, carrier). Pricing, data source, and the key accuracy limitation are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to decide and call correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter already carries examples (+905321234567, 00442079460000), so the schema does most of the work. The description still adds the normalization expectation (E.164 / international form), which is the one thing that determines whether the call fails.

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

Purpose5/5

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

"Parses an international phone number (E.164)... returns the country, line type..., formats and the carrier" gives a specific verb plus the exact output surface, so the agent knows precisely what this tool produces. It also names the thing it is not (a live HLR query), which no sibling in the list duplicates.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

"Not a live HLR query: ported numbers keep the original carrier and active/inactive status is not checked" is an explicit exclusion that tells the agent when this tool's answer is insufficient. It stops short of naming a separate alternative tool for live carrier/status checks, so the routing is implied rather than complete.

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

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?