Freelance MCP Server

validate

Returns the server owner's phone number in digits-only format by reading environment variables and stripping non-digit characters.

Instructions

Return the server owner's phone number in the required format:
  {country_code}{number}
Example: 919876543210 (for +91-9876543210)

This reads one of:
  - OWNER_PHONE (single env var containing the full digits, e.g. 15551234567)
  - OWNER_COUNTRY_CODE and OWNER_PHONE_NUMBER (e.g. 1 and 5551234567)

It strips non-digit characters and returns the digits-only string.

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": "validate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It usefully explains the two env-var sourcing modes and that non-digit characters are stripped before returning. It does not explain failure behavior (what if OWNER_PHONE is unset), permissions, or error modes, which matters for a tool reading environment secrets.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The format requirement and example are front-loaded usefully, but the 'This reads one of:' block is verbose for two simple sourcing modes, and the description is longer than the underlying behavior warrants.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be restated, but the description still restates the return format. It covers sourcing and stripping but omits failure behavior and the relationship to the 'validate' name, leaving the tool's actual purpose ambiguous.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does add meaning about the implicit inputs (env vars OWNER_PHONE or OWNER_COUNTRY_CODE/OWNER_PHONE_NUMBER) that the schema cannot express.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description says it returns the owner's phone number in a specific format and reads it from env vars, which is a concrete resource. However, it never states the actual operation ('validate') – the tool name suggests validation but the body describes retrieval/formatting. Purpose is stated for the side-effect, not the named tool.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to call this tool versus any sibling, nor any preconditions. The description explains mechanics but nothing about usage context.

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

Deploy Server