get_callRetrieve a single human phone call record to review missing information requests or the completed result.
Read one human phone call, including needs_info missing_fields or the final result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| call_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context that the response may include needs_info missing_fields or the final result, but it does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or other operational behavior.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It immediately states the action and resource, then adds the most relevant result detail.
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?
The tool is simple, annotations are rich, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, it leaves gaps around call_id sourcing and does not distinguish this tool from get_transcript, which an agent may need to choose correctly.
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?
There is one required parameter, call_id, but the schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain where call_id comes from, its format, or any constraints. The description adds essentially no meaning beyond the schema's parameter name.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read one human phone call.' It also names the kind of content available, such as needs_info missing_fields or the final result. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_transcript or update_call.
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 implies use for retrieving a single call by ID, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not say when to choose this over get_transcript or other call-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.