Retrieve an SMS for a specified phone number by matching a required keyword, enabling agents to verify codes or messages in D1Jiema SMS workflows.
Fetch the SMS containing the required keyword for a phone number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phone | Yes | ||
| key_word | Yes |
| 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 implies a read operation but omits auth requirements, whether it waits or polls for an arriving SMS, timeout behavior, rate limits, and what happens when no matching SMS exists.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently sized, though its terseness contributes to the broader completeness gaps.
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 less explanation. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, the description still omits critical context such as login prerequisites, SMS arrival timing, keyword matching behavior, and alternatives like history.
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%, so parameter meaning must come from the description. It maps phone to a phone number and key_word to a required keyword, but adds no format, matching rules, case sensitivity, or examples, leaving both parameters under-specified.
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 uses a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (SMS), and adds a clear qualifier: containing the required keyword for a phone number. This distinguishes it from siblings like send_sms and history, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.
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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The description implies a retrieval scenario but does not say when this tool should be chosen over history or how to obtain the required phone number.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.