Retrieve details of an ElevenLabs phone number by its ID. Provide the phone_number_id to fetch information about an imported phone number.
Get Phone Number
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phone_number_id | Yes | The phone number ID. This is returned when a phone number is imported. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations, such as what the retrieval returns or whether any permissions are required.
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 only two words and is under-specified rather than usefully concise. It neither front-loads nor communicates enough for reliable invocation.
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 simple one-parameter getter with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is still too thin to distinguish it from list_phone_numbers_route or to confirm it retrieves a single phone number by ID. No output schema exists, but the description does not compensate with basic return or scope 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single phone_number_id parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or syntax beyond the schema, which makes 3 the appropriate baseline.
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?
"Get Phone Number" restates the tool name and title without adding scope or distinguishing it from siblings such as list_phone_numbers_route, create_phone_number_route, update_phone_number_route, or delete_phone_number_route. It is a tautological purpose statement rather than a specific description.
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 provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternative tools. An agent receives no signal about why it should call this instead of list_phone_numbers_route or another sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.