placetel_cti_complete_conferenceCompletes a conference call via the Placetel CTI API by providing the device MAC, line, and call ID.
Complete conference. (POST /cti/{mac}/complete_conference)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mac | Yes | Path parameter mac. | |
| line | Yes | Body field line (required). | |
| call_id | Yes | Body field call_id (required). | |
| 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 readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the raw HTTP path, not what completing a conference actually does — whether it disconnects all participants, releases the line, or can be repeated. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is a minimal contribution.
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 fragments with no padding and the verb is front-loaded, but the brevity comes at the cost of specification rather than from efficiency. The parenthetical endpoint is the only extra signal.
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?
A CTI state-changing operation with three required parameters and no output schema needs more than a name echo: the meaning of the conference completion, the role of mac/line/call_id, and the expected outcome are all missing. The HTTP path alone does not close that gap.
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%, so mac, line, call_id, and response_format are all documented in the schema, and the description adds nothing further. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries parameter semantics entirely.
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?
"Complete conference" restates the tool name and title verbatim, adding no elaboration of what completing entails. It doesn't distinguish this from nearby siblings such as placetel_cti_start_conference or placetel_cti_complete_transfer, so an agent must guess which lifecycle step this is.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives. The agent is given no basis for choosing this over start_conference, hangup, or complete_transfer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.