Sends a signed test call to a function endpoint to verify it, returning status, latency, and the attributes the call would save.
Send a real signed test call (callSid TEST, a sample caller) to a function endpoint and report the status, latency and the attributes it would save.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Function 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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the call is real and signed and that it returns status, latency and attributes, but it does not state whether anything is persisted (the phrase 'attributes it would save' is ambiguous), what permissions are required, or what side effects a live signed call might trigger in the endpoint.
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 a parenthetical that earns its place by pinning down callSid TEST and the sample caller. No redundant boilerplate.
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?
One-parameter tool with no output schema; the description compensates by naming exactly what comes back (status, latency, saved attributes). The remaining gap is side-effect and permission disclosure, which matters for a tool that fires a real signed call.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'id' is already documented as 'Function UUID'. The description's reference to a 'function endpoint' adds little beyond that, so 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?
Specific verb + resource: 'Send a real signed test call ... to a function endpoint' names the action and target precisely. It implicitly contrasts with conduyt_simulate_call_flow by saying 'real signed test call', but never names that sibling, so an agent must infer the distinction.
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 by the word 'test' — an agent can guess this is for verifying a function endpoint before relying on it. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of conduyt_simulate_call_flow as an alternative, and no stated prerequisites (permissions, published flow state).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.