Retrieve a D1Jiema phone number for SMS verification tasks. Optionally filter by keyword, exact number, province, or card type to match your region or service.
Get a D1Jiema phone number. Optional keyword, exact phone, province, and card type filters are passed through.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phone | No | ||
| key_word | No | ||
| province | No | ||
| card_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says filters are 'passed through' but never discloses whether acquiring a number consumes balance, reserves a resource that requires a matching release, requires authentication, or what happens if no number matches the filters — all material for an acquisition tool.
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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the filter list following. The phrase 'are passed through' is vague filler rather than information, but the overall size is appropriate.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a 4-parameter acquisition tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the description omits the cost/reservation model and parameter semantics that an agent needs to call it correctly.
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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only lists the parameters as 'optional filters' without explaining what key_word matches, what format 'phone' expects, what province values are valid, or what card_type options exist, leaving the semantics of every parameter essentially undefined.
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 and resource ('Get a D1Jiema phone number') and names the filter dimensions, so an agent knows this tool acquires a number rather than reading SMS (d1jiema_get_sms) or releasing one (d1jiema_release). It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from those siblings, so it lands at a clear-but-not-disambiguating 4.
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 call this versus the sibling tools, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. login, sufficient balance), and no indication that a retrieved number may need to be released later. Usage must be fully inferred from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.