Skip to main content
Glama

Numbers Online — phone intelligence

by online.numbers

Phone number intelligence

phone_lookup
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return a supplementary, low-confidence intelligence bundle for a phone number: validity, formatting, line type, range carrier, country, caller name (CNAM, where available), STIR/SHAKEN verstat (supply the call's verstat to fold it into the spam signal), a labeled spam signal, and a first-party do-not-contact (DNC) signal — a suppression preference registered by the number's own owner, never a copy of any government registry. Advisory only — the agent keeps every routing and dialing decision.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
numberYesPhone number in E.164, e.g. +14155552671 (loose input is normalized).
verstatNoOptional STIR/SHAKEN verstat for THIS call — TN-Validation-Passed / -Failed / No-TN-Validation, or a full Identity / P-Asserted-Identity header value. When supplied it folds into the risk signal (a failed validation raises it).
max_cache_age_secondsNoOperator TTL control; 0 forces a fresh dip.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context: 'low-confidence', 'advisory only', and details that the DNC signal is first-party (not a government registry copy). No contradictions.

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 description is a single long sentence with a list of returned fields, which is clear but could be more structured. It front-loads the purpose and is generally adequate without extra fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates all return fields comprehensively. It covers the advisory nature and DNC specificity. Missing error or edge case handling, but overall complete for its intended use.

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 covers all 3 parameters (100% coverage). Description adds context for 'verstat' by explaining it folds into the spam signal. The other parameters are standard; the description doesn't repeat schema but adds slight extra value for the verstat parameter.

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 clearly states it returns a 'supplementary, low-confidence intelligence bundle' for a phone number, listing specific data points (validity, formatting, line type, carrier, country, CNAM, STIR/SHAKEN, spam signal, DNC signal). It distinguishes from siblings by offering a combined bundle, while siblings like 'caller_risk', 'dnc_check', 'line_type' appear to focus on individual aspects.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description says 'Advisory only — the agent keeps every routing and dialing decision', implying it's for intelligence, not actions. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs siblings like 'caller_risk' or 'dnc_check'. Missing explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use statements.

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

All Numbers Online — phone intelligence toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Tools overlap significantly: phone_lookup includes spam signals and DNC check, while caller_risk and dnc_check provide more specific or constrained functionality. Descriptions help differentiate use cases, but an agent might struggle to choose between them.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case and are descriptive (e.g., caller_risk, dnc_check, line_type, phone_lookup). The pattern is mostly consistent, though verbs and noun combinations vary slightly.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools cover the core needs of phone intelligence (quick classification, risk assessment, DNC check, comprehensive lookup) without redundancy. The scope is well-matched to the domain.

Completeness4/5

The set covers essential operations for phone intelligence: basic line info, risk, DNC, and a full lookup. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for updating DNC preferences), but given the server's advisory role, these are acceptable.

Resources