placetel_list_number_profilesRetrieve the profiles assigned to a specific phone number by number ID, returning them in markdown or JSON for read-only inspection.
List profiles for a number. (GET /numbers/{number_id}/profiles) Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number_id | Yes | Path parameter number_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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description mostly repeats 'Read-only' and adds only the HTTP path, without explaining return behavior, pagination, permissions, or profile contents.
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?
The description is two short sentences and front-loads the action and resource. It contains no wasted text, though it is terse enough that some useful context is omitted.
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 simple read-only list tool with a fully described schema and safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify what profile data is returned or whether results are paginated, and no output schema is available to compensate.
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 are fully documented in the schema, including the response_format enum. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States the specific verb 'List' and resource 'profiles' scoped to a number, plus the underlying endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from the create/activate/delete number profile siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over related tools such as get_number, list_numbers, or the number profile mutation tools. 'Read-only' implies safe usage but does not provide selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.