ucode_sms_active_rentalsActive/received rentals with SMS snippets if already fetched.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| code | No | ||
| data | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| phone | No | ||
| uiView | No | ||
| credits | No | ||
| endDate | No | ||
| smsCode | No | ||
| summary | Yes | ||
| rentalId | No | ||
| billingUrl | No | ||
| httpStatus | No | ||
| countryName | No | ||
| phoneNumber | No | ||
| serviceName | No | ||
| neededCredits | No | ||
| providerRentalId | No | ||
| remainingSeconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds one useful behavioral nuance — SMS snippets are only included 'if already fetched', implying this tool does not fetch new SMS content — but does not go deeper into authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral caveats.
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, compact phrase with no filler or redundancy. Every word adds information, particularly the conditional 'if already fetched', making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.
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?
For a low-complexity, zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema present, the description provides the essential information: what is returned and the conditional SMS snippet behavior. It is slightly terse regarding the meaning of 'received', but the output schema and annotations cover most context.
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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies here; the description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed.
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 identifies the resource ('active/received rentals') and the key condition ('with SMS snippets if already fetched'), making the tool's purpose fairly understandable. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve' and does not differentiate it from sibling tools such as ucode_sms_summary or ucode_sms_transactions.
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?
Usage is only implied by the name/title and the phrase 'active/received rentals' — an agent can infer it is for checking currently active rentals. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related SMS tools or any exclusions/alternatives.
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.