placetel_cti_complete_transferCompletes an ongoing Placetel CTI call transfer for a specified MAC address, line, and call ID.
Complete transfer. (POST /cti/{mac}/complete_transfer)
| 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, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description contributes nothing beyond the endpoint path — it does not say what state the call ends in, whether it can fail if no transfer is pending, or what happens to the other party.
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 very short sentences that are front-loaded but largely wasted: one repeats the tool name and the other is a raw route. Brevity here comes from under-specification rather than from efficient communication.
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 state-changing CTI action in a crowded family of siblings, the definition omits the flow context (that it finalizes a transfer initiated elsewhere), prerequisites, and any failure conditions. There is no output schema to lean on, so the description should carry more weight than it does.
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 already documented in the schema; a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning about how line or call_id relate to the transfer being completed.
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 restates the title verbatim ('Complete transfer') and adds only an HTTP route. It gives no indication of what completing a transfer actually does to the call, and it does not distinguish this from the many sibling CTI actions such as placetel_cti_start_transfer or placetel_cti_blind_transfer.
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 prerequisite (e.g. a transfer must first be started), and no mention of any alternative sibling tool. An agent cannot infer from the text when this action is appropriate versus start/blind transfer or complete_conference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.