placetel_list_sip_user_short_codesRetrieves the list of short codes assigned to a specific SIP user by ID, returning results in markdown or JSON format.
Short codes. (GET /sip_users/{id}/short_codes) 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description's only behavioral claim, 'Read-only', duplicates the annotation and adds no context about authentication, pagination, rate limits, or what is returned.
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 very short and front-loads the resource and endpoint. However, the fragment 'Short codes.' carries little information and 'Read-only.' merely repeats the annotation, so it is concise but not maximally informative.
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 endpoint with fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. It still omits an explicit statement that the id refers to a SIP user and that the tool returns that user's short codes, which would remove ambiguity.
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 (id and response_format) are documented in the schema, including the response format enum. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 is largely a restatement of the title/name ('Short codes') and does not explicitly state the verb 'list'. The parenthetical endpoint (GET /sip_users/{id}/short_codes) does clarify the resource and retrieval method, so an agent can infer this lists short codes for a SIP user, but the purpose is not stated in plain language.
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 alternatives such as placetel_create_sip_user_short_code or placetel_delete_sip_user_short_code. The only usage cue is 'Read-only', which is insufficient to route between sibling short-code operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.