validate_mobileValidate 11-digit mainland Chinese mobile numbers. Supports various formats including +86, spaces, and hyphens while automatically predicting the service provider based on the number segment.
校验中国大陆 11 位手机号格式（支持 +86、空格、横线），按号段推测运营商
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phone | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses accepted input formats and that the tool infers the carrier segment, which is genuine context, but it does not say whether the check is purely local/read-only, what happens on invalid input, or whether a carrier string or just a boolean is produced.
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?
One dense sentence that front-loads the core validation scope and appends the accepted input variants and carrier inference. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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 single-parameter validator this is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema the description should state the return shape (boolean validity, normalized number, inferred carrier). It hints at a carrier result without defining it, leaving a real gap for correct interpretation.
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 0% and the single 'phone' parameter has no type detail beyond string in the schema. The description compensates well by specifying the 11-digit mainland format with optional +86 prefix, spaces, and hyphens, which is exactly the syntax an agent needs before calling.
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 definition states a specific action (validate) applied to a specific resource (mainland China 11-digit mobile number) and adds the accepted format variants (+86, spaces, hyphens) plus a carrier-inference side effect. It is clearly distinct from sibling validators such as validate_id_card and validate_uscc.
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 verb 'validate' and the stated format scope, so an agent can infer this is a format-check tool. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (for example, distinguishing it from validate_id_card on identity-related input) is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.