warp-mcp

Add a trunk IP ACL entry

trunk_add_ip_acl

Add an IP address to a trunk's ACL and sync it to Kamailio, permitting that source IP to send calls. Requires IP_ACL auth type and step-up MFA.

Instructions

Add an IP/netmask to an owned trunk's ACL and sync it to Kamailio, allowing that source IP to send calls. The trunk's auth_type should include IP_ACL (IP_ACL, EITHER, or BOTH — check with trunk_get). Step-up MFA required. Errors: NO_ACTIVE_CUSTOMER, INVALID_ID, NOT_FOUND, INVALID_PAYLOAD, INTERNAL_ERROR.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "trunk_id": "<trunk_id>",
      "ip": "<ip>"
    },
    "name": "trunk_add_ip_acl"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ip`	Yes	IPv4 address to allow (e.g. 203.0.113.10)
`enabled`	No	Whether the entry is active (default true)
`netmask`	No	CIDR netmask bits, 0-32 (e.g. 32 for a single host)
`trunk_id`	Yes	Trunk group UUID (find it with trunk_list)
`description`	No	Free-text label for this ACL entry (e.g. 'HQ PBX')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses that the tool syncs to Kamailio and lists common error codes. Annotations are all false, so no contradictions. Could mention idempotency or destruction implications but not required.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences plus error list, no fluff. Purpose is front-loaded. Efficiently conveys core information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers most essentials: action, precondition, MFA, errors. Lacks success response indication and mention of trunk ownership requirement. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds context ('IP/netmask', 'allow source IP') but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: adding an IP/netmask to a trunk's ACL and syncing to Kamailio, with the effect of allowing calls from that source. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete and update by specifically mentioning 'add' and the sync operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a precondition: trunk's auth_type must include IP_ACL. Also notes step-up MFA required. Lacks explicit comparison to alternatives (e.g., when to use update vs add) but context is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server