hebrew-il-mcp

Normalize Israeli phone number

normalize_israeli_phone

Parse Israeli phone numbers from any common format into E.164 and national display forms, and identify the line type: mobile, landline, VoIP, or toll-free.

Instructions

Parse an Israeli phone number in any common format and return E.164 (+972...), a national display format and the line type (mobile, landline, VoIP, toll-free).

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": {
      "phone": "<phone>"
    },
    "name": "normalize_israeli_phone"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`phone`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return payload (three representations plus line type), which is valuable given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about failure behavior on invalid or ambiguous numbers, whether it throws or returns a status, or whether it is a pure side-effect-free read.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the concrete return values. Nothing is wasted and there is no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back well enough to use the result. The remaining gap is error/edge-case behavior for invalid numbers, which matters more here than for a typical read tool.

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 0% — the single 'phone' parameter is an undescribed string. The phrase 'in any common format' adds real meaning about accepted input flexibility, but it stops short of clarifying whether a country code is required, which separators/prefixes are tolerated, or giving a single example.

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 names a specific verb (parse) and resource (Israeli phone number) and enumerates the exact outputs: E.164, national display format, and line type. Against siblings like validate_israeli_id or israeli_iban, the domain is unambiguous and an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: 'in any common format' signals tolerant input, and the tool's role as a normalizer is inferable, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. country code handling), and no mention of what to do instead for related tasks.

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

Deploy Server