placetel_reconfigure_provisioningTriggers reconfiguration of a phone by ID via the Placetel provisioning API, applying updated settings to the device.
Trigger reconfiguration of a phone. (POST /provisionings/{id}/reconfigure)
| 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 non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavior beyond the endpoint: whether reconfiguration is asynchronous, whether the device reboots or loses service, whether repeated calls are harmful, or whether permissions beyond the id are needed is all unstated.
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?
Two short, front-loaded fragments with no filler. The endpoint parenthetical is of marginal value but is cheap and confirms the REST mapping.
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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, and the description says nothing about the result, timing, or side effects on the physical phone. For an action that likely triggers device-side changes, that leaves the agent without enough to call it 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 both parameters (id, response_format) are already documented in the schema. The description contributes nothing beyond that, which is the baseline expectation.
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 states a verb+resource ('Trigger reconfiguration of a phone') and adds the underlying endpoint, so the action is identifiable. However, it is essentially a restatement of the title with no differentiation from nearby siblings such as placetel_update_provisioning or placetel_get_provisioning.
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 indication of when this should be used instead of updating a provisioning record, what state the phone must be in, or what happens afterward. The agent gets no routing guidance among the ~15 provisioning-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.