Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Veille MCP Server

Veille MCP Server

Official
by veilleio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Phone Validation

intelligence_phone
Read-only

Validate phone numbers in E.164 format to detect disposable or virtual lines, identify carrier and line type, return country and timezone, and compute a 0-100 risk score for fraud checks.

Instructions

Phone Validation. Validate any phone number in E.164 format. Detects disposable and virtual numbers, identifies carrier and line type (mobile/fixed/VoIP), returns country and timezone, and computes a 0-100 risk score. Credit cost: 1 credit per call.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "intelligence_phone"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesThe phone number to validate in E.164 format (must start with +, e.g. +33612345678).
fieldsNoComma-separated list of fields to keep in the response, with dot notation for nested fields (e.g. name,location.city). Does not change the credit cost.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the credit cost (1 credit per call) and the returned signal set, but says nothing about error behavior for malformed numbers, rate limits, or response shape details.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the returned signals, then the cost. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition covers purpose, inputs, outputs and cost. The only meaningful gap is failure behavior for invalid or non-E.164 input.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the E.164 requirement and the dot-notation 'fields' filter. The description repeats the E.164 format but adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Validate any phone number in E.164 format') and enumerates what the validation produces (carrier, line type, country, timezone, risk score). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like intelligence_email or intelligence_ip, though the name and domain make the split fairly obvious.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for checking a phone number's validity, carrier, or fraud risk, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or 'use X instead' statement, and no stated alternative among the intelligence_* siblings.

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