get_sip_trunkRetrieve a specific SIP trunk's details by record ID. The password is never included in the response, so you can safely inspect its configuration.
Fetch one SIP trunk by id. The password is never returned.
Requires scope sip_trunks:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The record id, e.g. "6a96a3ead6e886d42462dd3e". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations: the password is never returned, and a specific OAuth scope is required. This is especially useful for a read-only retrieval that might otherwise be assumed to return all fields.
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 sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and only essential security/scope context added. There is no fluff or repetition.
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 single-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, id-based selection, auth requirement, and the key security consideration (password omitted). No output schema exists, but the description adequately implies a SIP trunk object is returned.
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% for the single id parameter, so the schema already documents semantics. The description simply confirms 'by id' without adding new parameter information, making a baseline score of 3 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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('SIP trunk'), and scope ('by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from list_sip_trunks and other SIP trunk operations like create/update/delete.
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 implies the tool is for fetching a single SIP trunk when you already have its id. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like list_sip_trunks, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.