Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agentring

agentring

by mutonby
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_replies

Fetch new replies from the user's Android phone over VoIP, optionally waiting up to a set number of seconds for a reply to arrive.

Instructions

The user's new replies (each one is returned once). With wait_s, waits up to that many seconds for a reply if there is none yet.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_replies"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wait_sNoSeconds to wait for a reply (default 0: return at once).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two meaningful traits: at-most-once delivery ('each one is returned once') and blocking behavior bounded by wait_s. It omits what happens on an empty non-blocking call, whether replies are ordered, and what 'new' is measured against (no cursor parameter exists, so the statefulness is undisclosed).

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?

Two short sentences, the delivery guarantee stated first and the blocking option second, with no filler. Every clause carries distinct information.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the essentials of invocation are covered. However, the critical 'returned once' guarantee is left undefined in terms of scope or lifetime, and the shape of a successful return (list versus single item, empty case) is never described.

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 coverage is 100% on the single wait_s parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small increment by clarifying the wait only applies 'if there is none yet', but the schema already states the default and return-at-once behavior.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific resource and its delivery scope: 'the user's new replies', qualified by 'each one is returned once'. That is clear enough to know what the tool fetches, though it never states an explicit verb or distinguishes itself from siblings like call, send_message, or status.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention that wait_s blocks 'if there is none yet' hints at long-polling for replies instead of repeated polling. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no comparison against any sibling tool.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools