placetel_get_routingFetch read-only routing details for a phone number or routing ID from Placetel, returning markdown or JSON output for inspection.
Retrieve routing. (GET /routings/{number_or_id}) Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number_or_id | Yes | Path parameter number_or_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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the phrase 'Read-only' adds nothing beyond structured data. The description omits anything about lookup failure (e.g. unknown number_or_id), permissions, or what a routing record contains.
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 and front-loaded, which is good, but the second sentence merely echoes annotation data ('Read-only') rather than earning its place with useful detail. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.
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?
With no output schema, the description should explain what a routing record is and what a successful or failed lookup returns; it does neither. For a simple two-parameter GET tool it is callable, but an agent still cannot predict the response shape or error behavior.
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% and both parameters (number_or_id, response_format) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes only the URL template showing number_or_id as a path segment, which is marginal value.
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 'Retrieve routing' essentially restates the tool name and title with no added specificity, and it never distinguishes this single-routing fetch from siblings such as placetel_list_routings, placetel_get_routing_plan, or placetel_update_routing. Only the appended endpoint path hints at the resource addressed by number_or_id.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus placetel_list_routings (or the routing-plan variants), and no preconditions or exclusions are stated. An agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.