Initiate an outbound callback through Mango Office cloud PBX. Provide the caller's internal number or SIP account and the destination number to connect the call.
Инициировать исходящий звонок (callback) через Mango Office.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Номер назначения (E.164 или внутренний) | |
| from | Yes | Внутренний номер или SIP-аккаунт инициатора | |
| line | No | Линия (CallerID) для исходящего звонка |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, success/failure behavior, asynchronicity, or any constraints. For a state-changing tool, this is a minimal disclosure and leaves the agent uncertain about the operation's full impact.
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, compact sentence with no filler. It effectively communicates the core purpose without verbosity, making it easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool initiates a potentially blocking or asynchronous action, the description lacks crucial context like whether it returns a call ID, how errors are reported, or if there are limitations on simultaneity. The agent has only the schema to work with, which isn't enough for a complete understanding of the call lifecycle.
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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description adds little semantic value. It does imply the call is a 'callback' but doesn't clarify parameters beyond the schema, which already explains each field well. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'инициировать' (initiate) and the resource 'исходящий звонок' (outgoing call) via Mango Office. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_calls, which are read-oriented, though it doesn't explicitly call out the difference. The action is unambiguous.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives is provided, but since there is no sibling tool for making calls, the intended use is fairly obvious. However, prerequisites like required permissions or call context are not mentioned, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.