Import a phone number to an existing SIP trunk by specifying the number, SIP host, and trunk name. Configure authentication, port, and dialing options in one request.
Import a phone number associated with a SIP trunk. (Tags: Phone numbers)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| requestBody | Yes | The JSON request body. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, implying a mutation. The description adds no additional behavioral transparency beyond that—it does not disclose whether the import overwrites existing numbers, requires special credentials, or has side effects on the SIP trunk configuration. With annotations present, the description should add context like idempotency or permission requirements, but it does not.
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 core description is a single concise sentence that directly states the action. The appended '(Tags: Phone numbers)' is a minor distraction but does not detract significantly. It is 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?
Given a complex nested requestBody with nine parameters and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the import's effect, when it might fail, or how it relates to other phone number tools. The rich schema covers inputs but not behavioral context, leaving the description incomplete.
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 input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for every parameter, including E.164 format and default port 5060. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning; the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 uses the specific verb 'Import' and identifies the resource as 'a phone number associated with a SIP trunk,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like importTwilioNumber and importExotelNumber. However, the tool name 'importSipTrunk' and title 'Import SIP trunk' create some ambiguity about whether the trunk or the phone number is the primary object, so it is not perfectly clear.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as importTwilioNumber or importExotelNumber. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.