get_callFetch the current state of one call by id.
Fetch the current state of one call by id.
Use this after ``place_call`` (or to check on any prior call)
to read the call's latest ``status`` and timing fields.
Returns the API's ``CallResponse`` as a dict, or
``{"error": "call not found"}`` for an unknown id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| call_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.29.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: it returns the API's CallResponse as a dict, and returns {"error": "call not found"} for an unknown id — the error contract is valuable and not in the annotations or schema.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler. The retained RST double-backtick markup adds slight visual noise but costs almost nothing in length.
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 single-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger context, and the error case. Only the call_id format/origin is left unstated, which is a small residual gap.
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 0% and the single parameter call_id has no description in the schema. The description only implies semantics via 'by id' and 'for an unknown id'; it doesn't specify the id's origin or format (e.g., the id returned by place_call). Minor value added over an obvious string-id parameter.
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?
States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Fetch the current state of one call by id.' The 'one call' phrasing implicitly separates it from the sibling list_calls, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Gives clear usage context: 'Use this after place_call (or to check on any prior call) to read the call's latest status and timing fields.' It names the sibling place_call and the follow-up pattern, but offers no explicit exclusion (e.g., 'use list_calls to enumerate calls').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.