placetel_activate_numberActivate a Placetel phone number by its ID through the Web API, returning confirmation in markdown or JSON for readable or machine-readable results.
Activate a number. (POST /numbers/{id}/activation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Path parameter id. | |
| response_format | No | Output format: 'markdown' (human-readable, default) or 'json' (machine-readable). | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the action and the HTTP endpoint: it doesn't say what activation actually changes on the number, whether it is reversible, whether it consumes licensing/billing, or what state the number must be in beforehand — meaningful gaps for a state-changing operation.
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?
Two short clauses, front-loaded with the action, with zero wasted words. However, the brevity crosses into under-specification: the parenthetical endpoint is the only extra content and contributes little to an agent deciding how to call it.
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 mutating, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description should explain effects, preconditions, and expected result. Instead it offers only the verb and the REST path, leaving the agent able to identify the action but not to predict its consequences or confirm success.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% — both the `id` path parameter and the `response_format` enum are documented in the schema — so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional meaning about what `id` refers to (number ID vs. phone number) or any format hint.
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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Activate a number") that an agent can map directly to the tool name and, via the endpoint path, to the numbers/{id} sub-resource. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling placetel_deactivate_number or placetel_activate_number_profile, so the agent must infer which of the three activation-style tools applies.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus placetel_deactivate_number or placetel_activate_number_profile, and no prerequisites or preconditions (e.g., whether the number must be provisioned or unassigned) are stated. The agent gets a purpose but no routing logic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.