Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Wagner-Emden-IT-Services

placetel-web-api-mcp-server

by Wagner-Emden-IT-Services
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Create a routing object

placetel_create_routing

Create a Placetel routing object with a name and configuration for IVR, queue, forwarding, mailbox, or time settings to define incoming call handling.

Instructions

Create a routing object. (POST /routings)

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
apiNoBody field api.
ivrNoBody field ivr.
nameYesBody field name (required).
groupNoBody field group.
queueNoBody field queue.
forwardNoBody field forward.
mailboxNoBody field mailbox.
notificationNoBody field notification.
music_on_holdNoBody field music_on_hold.
time_settingsNoBody field time_settings.
custom_calleridNoBody field custom_callerid.
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' (human-readable, default) or 'json' (machine-readable).markdown
notify_external_apiNoBody field notify_external_api.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already define it as a mutable operation (destructiveHint: false, readOnlyHint: false). The description adds technical context by including the HTTP method and resource path (POST /routings), which is marginally helpful execution detail.

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?

The description is extremely brief and direct. It uses the minimum necessary text to identify the action and the resource, scoring highly for its efficiency.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite the complex 13-parameter input schema, the description provides no context on what a successful creation looks like (e.g., does it return the new ID, or just a status code). Given no output schema, this is a significant omission for a mutation 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?

Since the schema coverage is 100%, the schema itself provides all structural meaning for the 13 parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond repeating the core function.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the action (Create) and the resource (routing object). However, it is highly generic and does not specify the scope or type of routing object being created, making it difficult to differentiate from other creation methods.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The definition offers no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives, such as `placetel_create_routing_plan`. It does not describe any prerequisites or conditions for successful execution.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools