Compare a call flow's Twilio voice webhook with Conduyt's required inbound URL and report whether they match, so you can confirm the flow is wired to receive calls.
Twilio's truth for a call flow's number: the voice webhook Twilio has right now vs the inboundUrl Conduyt needs, and whether they match (wired). A published flow that is NOT wired does not receive calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Call flow UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the value is Twilio's live state (an external-system read) and the operational consequence of a mismatch, which is genuinely useful context. It does not state that the call is side-effect free, what permissions or connect state are needed, or what happens when the flow has no number at all.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the core comparison front-loaded and the operational consequence placed after it. Nothing is repeated from the schema or title.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the important work of describing the returned comparison and the wired/mismatch verdict, which is what an agent needs to interpret the result. It falls short only on prerequisites (connect/auth state, behavior for flows with no assigned number).
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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Call flow UUID'), and the description only echoes that this is 'a call flow's number', adding no format or resolution guidance. Baseline 3 applies when schema coverage is 100%.
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 states concretely what the tool returns: a comparison between Twilio's live voice webhook and the inboundUrl Conduyt expects, plus a match/wired verdict. That is far more specific than the name alone (which only says 'get_call_flow_wiring'), but it never explicitly names the sibling it complements, e.g. conduyt_wire_call_flow_number, which does the actual fixing.
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 only implied through the consequence statement 'A published flow that is NOT wired does not receive calls', which suggests a diagnostic scenario, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (wire_call_flow_number, list_call_flow_numbers) is named. The agent must infer the remediation path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.