Retrieve all phone numbers in your account, including ID, status, country, and assigned agent, with pagination via limit and offset.
List all phone numbers in your account, each with its ID, status, country, and assigned agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return | |
| offset | No | Number of results to skip (for pagination) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the shape of the result (ID, status, country, assigned agent), which is genuinely useful since no output schema exists, but it says nothing about pagination behavior, result caps, or ordering.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the action and the returned fields with zero filler; nothing is repeated from structured data unnecessarily.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates returned fields and, with only two well-documented optional parameters and strong read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly. Only the pagination/result-limit behavior is left implicit.
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% and both parameters (limit, offset) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides.
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?
States a specific verb (list) and resource (phone numbers in your account) and enumerates the returned fields, so it is clearly distinct from buy_number or attach_number. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.
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 implied by the name and the 'in your account' scoping, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to related tools such as attach_number or buy_number when the desired number is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.