Kovitel Vietnam eSIM & 5G Telecommunications MCP Server

kovitel_check_device_compatibility

Checks whether a smartphone model such as iPhone, Galaxy, Pixel, or Xiaomi supports digital eSIM on Vietnam 5G networks before you buy a plan.

Instructions

Verify if a smartphone model (iPhone, Samsung Galaxy, Google Pixel, Xiaomi, etc.) supports digital eSIM on Vietnam 5G networks.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "model": "<model>"
    },
    "name": "kovitel_check_device_compatibility"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`model`	Yes	Smartphone model name (e.g., "iPhone 15 Pro", "Galaxy S24 Ultra", "Pixel 8", "Xiaomi 14")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a non-mutating lookup but says nothing about what the response contains (boolean, supported bands, failure reason for unknown models), data freshness, or behavior on unsupported/unrecognized input — significant gaps for a verification tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the compatibility question, zero filler. Nothing to trim.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is serviceable but does not tell the agent what a result looks like or how to interpret an unsupported verdict. A sentence on the returned compatibility outcome would close the gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single `model` parameter already carries format examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that the model is a smartphone (iPhone, Samsung Galaxy, Pixel, Xiaomi) and the network region, which narrows intent but no new param semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (verify) and a precise resource/scope: smartphone model support for digital eSIM on Vietnam 5G networks. This is unmistakably distinct from the siblings (data plan calculation, APN lookup, network benchmark, emergency contacts), so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The purpose implies the usage context (checking handset compatibility with a Vietnamese 5G eSIM), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to the sibling tools or prerequisites. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server