Simulate a call flow against live member availability to see who would pick up if someone called now, without changing data.
Answer "if someone calls right now, who picks up?" — simulates the DRAFT graph against LIVE member availability (DIDs, on-call state). No side effects.
| 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, and it delivers the most important trait explicitly: 'No side effects.' It also discloses the comparison mechanism (draft configuration vs. live DIDs/on-call state), which is genuine behavioral context. It omits permission requirements and what happens if the draft is invalid, keeping it below a 5.
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 compact clauses with zero filler: the purpose question is front-loaded, then the mechanism and the safety guarantee. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description's 'who picks up?' framing adequately implies the return value (the resolved destination). For a one-parameter, side-effect-free simulation, this is close to complete, though it could say the result reflects live state at call time.
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?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'id' as the call flow UUID. The description adds no format or sourcing guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Uses a concrete verb (simulate) and a precise resource (the call flow graph), and frames the question it answers in plain terms ('who picks up?'). It implicitly differentiates itself from validate/publish siblings by specifying DRAFT graph vs LIVE availability, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
The framing 'if someone calls right now, who picks up?' gives a clear situational trigger, and 'DRAFT graph against LIVE member availability' signals this is a pre-publish check. It stops short of naming alternatives such as conduyt_validate_call_flow or conduyt_publish_call_flow or stating when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.