Ringler

Name my agent

name_my_agent

Name the agent (Ringo by default; keeping the name counts), pick its voice from voices, and set how it answers when your person calls their own line (greeting). Free; change any time. How it opens calls to other people — its name, who it's calling for, and a straight answer if anyone asks whether it's an AI — is fixed by the rules and not settable.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "name_my_agent"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	A first name.
`voice`	No	A voice from the voices tool, e.g. daniel.
`greeting`	No	Exactly what it says when your person calls, e.g. 'Good evening, sir. Jarvis here. How can I help?' ({first} and {name} fill in).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedNov 8, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / greeting

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Exactly what it says when your person calls, e.g. 'Good evening, sir. Jarvis here. How can I help?' ({first} and {name} fill in).",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / voice

Added value: +{
+  "description": "A voice from the voices tool, e.g. daniel.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / voice_id

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "ElevenLabs voice id, optional.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive mutation; the description adds real value on top by stating it is free and changeable at any time, that Ringo is the default, and that re-submitting the current name is acceptable. It stops short of saying whether omitted fields (voice, greeting) are preserved or reset on a subsequent call, which is the one behavioral gap.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The settable behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, with cost/reversibility second and the fixed-behavior caveat last — a sensible ordering. The em-dash aside about outbound call openings is dense but earns its place by preventing wasted attempts to configure it.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a three-parameter, non-destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers defaults, cost, reversibility, and scope exclusions. The only missing piece is partial-update semantics when optional fields are omitted.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by disclosing the default name value and by scoping `greeting` to calls from the user's own person rather than all calls. That scoping meaning is not derivable from the schema alone.

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?

The description names a specific verb (name/set) and enumerates exactly the three configurable facets: name, voice, and greeting. It also draws a sharp line around what this tool cannot change (outbound call opening, AI disclosure), which makes the tool's scope unmistakable.

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?

It signals when to reach for it — a free, reversible customization step — and points to the `voices` sibling for valid voice values. It does not explicitly contrast with other configuration siblings like `vibe` or `my_details`, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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

All Ringler tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.