placetel_cti_start_transferInitiate a call transfer via Placetel CTI by specifying the MAC address, line, and call ID to hand off an active call.
Start transfer. (POST /cti/{mac}/start_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 state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of side effects on the live call, required call state, or what happens to the existing call leg.
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?
It is short, but the brevity comes from omitting information rather than from efficiency: the only content beyond the name is an endpoint path, which is of little use to an agent choosing and invoking the tool.
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 stateful call-control action with no output schema and several closely related siblings, the description should explain the transfer sequence and effect. It provides none of that, leaving the agent to guess the workflow.
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 every parameter (mac, line, call_id, response_format) is documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional semantic detail about what 'line' identifies or the meaning of call_id.
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 tool name ('Start transfer') and appends only the raw HTTP endpoint '(POST /cti/{mac}/start_transfer)'. It does not explain what a 'transfer' means in this CTI context (e.g., starts a consultation/attended transfer of an active call to another line), so it barely exceeds tautology.
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 on when to use this versus the very similar siblings placetel_cti_blind_transfer and placetel_cti_complete_transfer, nor any prerequisite (e.g., an active call_id). The agent must infer the two-step attended-transfer workflow on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.