Retrieve IVR auto-attendant menus from a Yeastar P-Series PBX to review call routing and identify menu options.
List IVR (auto-attendant) menus.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-based). Defaults to 1. | |
| page_size | No | Items per page. Defaults to the PBX's own default page size. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the core operation. It does not mention pagination behavior, what the response contains, or whether all IVRs are returned without filtering.
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 description is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately terse for the simplicity of the operation, though the brevity leaves behavioral details unaddressed.
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 list operation with fully documented optional pagination parameters, this is minimally viable for a basic call. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not disclose the return format or how pagination manifests in the response, leaving clear gaps.
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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, including their defaults and types. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('IVR menus'), and expands the acronym to 'auto-attendant', making the purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly contrast with the singular 'yeastar_get_ivr' sibling, but the plural 'menus' and use of 'List' help distinguish collection behavior from retrieval of a single item.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like yeastar_get_ivr. The word 'List' weakly implies collection-style usage, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.