List VoIP, ITSP, and FXO trunks configured on Yeastar P-Series PBX appliances to retrieve trunk details for routing and management queries.
List trunks (VoIP/ITSP/FXO) configured on this appliance.
| 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?
The verb 'List' implies a non-destructive read operation, but no annotations are provided, so the description carries that burden. It does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, limits, or whether all trunks are returned in one call; those details are left to the schema.
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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the operation and resource and includes useful type clarification.
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 paginated list operation with fully documented parameters, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and a closely related sibling tool, the description should at least hint at the all-trunk vs. ITSP-trunk distinction or return scope to be fully complete.
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 schema describes both parameters fully with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to restate them. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline 3 applies because the schema covers the parameters.
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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('trunks') and adds the type categories VoIP/ITSP/FXO, making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this generic trunk list from the sibling yeastar_list_itsp_trunks, so it does not fully differentiate.
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 about when to use this tool versus yeastar_list_itsp_trunks or yeastar_get_trunk. The sibling set suggests an important distinction, but the description provides no selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.