Enrich and validate US phone numbers to get carrier and activity details. Input a phone number to receive structured enrichment data for verification and analysis.
Validates and enriches a US phone number with carrier and activity details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phone | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Input schema / properties / phone / descriptionRemoved value: -"US phone number, e.g. 12069735100"v1.0.0Does 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 states that validation and enrichment occur and lists output categories, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, idempotency, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only or paid.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the operation, scope, and output summary immediately.
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 simple one-parameter enrichment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It gives the purpose and hints at returned fields, but omits parameter formatting, error behavior, and how it relates to the generic run_phone_enrichment sibling.
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?
The schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It adds that the phone number should be US-based, which is useful, but it does not specify expected format (e.g., E.164, digits only, country code prefix) or validation constraints.
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 names a specific verb combination ('Validates and enriches') and a precise resource ('a US phone number'), with additional detail about output ('carrier and activity details'). It distinguishes itself by region from the sibling run_phone_enrichment, but does not explicitly state that it is the US-specific alternative.
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?
Usage is implied: use this tool when you have a US phone number to validate or enrich. However, no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided, and the sibling run_phone_enrichment is not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.