warp-mcp

Enable or disable a SIP credential

trunk_update_credential

Idempotent

Enable or disable a SIP credential on a trunk. Disabling drops HA1/AOR and terminates active registrations; enabling restores them.

Instructions

Toggle a SIP credential's enabled flag. Disabling drops the Redis HA1 + AOR and tears down active registrations (in-progress dialogs are NOT terminated); enabling restores them. Use trunk_list_credentials first to find the credential id. Step-up MFA required. Errors: INVALID_ID, NO_ACTIVE_CUSTOMER, TRUNK_UNOWNED, INVALID_PAYLOAD, NOT_FOUND, 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>",
      "cred_id": "<cred_id>"
    },
    "name": "trunk_update_credential"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cred_id`	Yes	SIP credential UUID (find it with trunk_list_credentials)
`enabled`	No	true to enable the credential, false to disable it
`trunk_id`	Yes	Trunk group UUID (find it with trunk_list)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Describes side effects in detail: disabling drops Redis HA1/AOR and tears down active registrations but not in-progress dialogs. Also mentions step-up MFA requirement and lists error codes, adding value beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. Front-loaded with the primary action, then side effects, prerequisite, auth, and errors. Every sentence contributes necessary information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Covers prerequisites, side effects, authentication (step-up MFA), and error codes. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently prepares the agent for expected outcomes.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully described. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only referencing trunk_list_credentials for the cred_id field.

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?

Clearly states the action (toggle/enable/disable) and resource (SIP credential enabled flag). Distinguishes from sibling tools like trunk_create_credential and trunk_delete_credential by focusing on the enabled flag update.

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?

Explicitly advises using trunk_list_credentials first to find the credential ID. Lists possible errors, which helps in error handling. Could be improved by explicitly contrasting with alternatives (e.g., trunk_create_credential for new credentials).

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

Deploy Server