Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
seven-mcp

seven-mcp

Official
by seven-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

validate_sender

Validates sender identifiers for voice or SMS communications to confirm correctness and prevent delivery issues.

Instructions

Validate sender identifier for voice calls

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "sender": "<sender>",
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "validate_sender"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
senderYesSender identifier to validate
typeYesType of validation (e.g., voice)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only says 'validate' with no mention of side effects, return values, or required permissions. As a validation tool, it is likely read-only, but this is not stated.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

One concise sentence with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the verb 'validate'.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has two parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain what the validation result looks like (e.g., boolean, error messages) or provide any behavioral details. Given the complexity, more information is needed for correct use.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the purpose of the type parameter or the format of the sender identifier.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states 'validate sender identifier' which matches the tool name, and specifies 'for voice calls'. However, the input schema includes an 'sms' option for type, so describing it only for voice calls is slightly misleading, though not severe.

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 use this tool versus siblings like lookup_cnam or lookup_hlr, which may also serve validation purposes. No exclusions or context provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools