placetel_set_cti_configConfigure CTI settings for a specific device by MAC address, updating its parameters through the Placetel API to apply telephony configuration changes.
Set config params. (PUT /cti/{mac})
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mac | Yes | Path parameter mac. | |
| params | Yes | Body field params (required). | |
| 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?
Since annotations already define this as a non-read-only and non-destructive operation, the description adds no unique behavioral context. It fails to mention rate limiting, required scopes, or specific side effects of setting config parameters.
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 definition is maximally concise. It uses two short sentences, efficiently pairing the action with the API route. There is zero superfluous language.
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?
Despite the 100% schema coverage, the description is insufficient for a mutation tool that requires a complex 'params' payload. It provides no high-level context about what types of configuration parameters are valid or expected.
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 coverage is 100%, meaning the schema provides adequate documentation. The description itself is too brief to add meaningful semantic value beyond what is already present in the structured input fields like 'mac' and 'params'.
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 clearly states the action ('Set config params') and provides the HTTP method and endpoint template (PUT /cti/{mac}), making the function and target resource clear. It is functionally specific, although it does not elaborate on the nature of the configuration being set.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_cti_config or other update tools. It lacks crucial context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.