placetel_get_numberRetrieve details for a specific Placetel phone number by its ID to inspect number data.
Retrieve a number. (GET /numbers/{id}) Read-only.
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so "Read-only" is redundant restatement rather than added value. Nothing is said about what the returned number object contains, whether the id must be an internal id versus a phone number, or what happens on a missing id.
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?
Three short fragments with no padding, and the verb is front-loaded. However the parenthetical HTTP path is of marginal value to an agent and the space saved comes at the cost of under-specification.
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?
This is a simple two-parameter read with no output schema, so the description carried the burden of explaining the shape of a "number" resource and did not. Combined with a crowded sibling set that includes listing, activating and deactivating numbers, the definition is too thin to guide correct invocation confidently.
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 the schema already documents both id and response_format, hitting the baseline of 3. The description adds nothing further, notably leaving unresolved whether the integer `id` is the internal record id or a dialable number.
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?
"Retrieve a number" gives a verb and a resource, and the endpoint path confirms it is a single-resource fetch. But "number" is ambiguous (telephone number object vs. numeric value) and the description does nothing to separate it from siblings like placetel_list_numbers or placetel_activate_number.
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 statement of when to use this versus placetel_list_numbers (list) or placetel_activate_number / deactivate_number. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the single-id lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.