e164_checkValidate a phone number's E.164 structure (+CC, 8-15 digits, no leading zero) before dispatching SMS alerts or OTPs. Returns signed XDR-1 receipt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phone | Yes | International phone number, e.g. +14155552671. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | No | ||
| scope | No | ||
| valid | Yes | ||
| reason | Yes | ||
| country | No | ||
| normalized | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesPrevious value: -[
- {
- "input": {
- "phone": "+14155552671"
- },
- "output": {
- "reason": "checksum valid",
- "valid": true
- }
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "phone": "+14155552671"
+ }
+]Output schema / examplesRemoved value: -[
- {
- "reason": "checksum valid",
- "valid": true
- }
-]Input schema / examplesPrevious value: -[
- {
- "phone": "+14155552671"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "input": {
+ "phone": "+14155552671"
+ },
+ "output": {
+ "reason": "checksum valid",
+ "valid": true
+ }
+ }
+]Output schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "reason": "checksum valid",
+ "valid": true
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool returns a signed XDR-1 receipt, which is a behavioral detail beyond the schema. There is no contradiction with the annotations.
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 sentences with no filler: the first states the action and usage context, the second states the return value. The description is front-loaded and 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?
The tool is simple and the input is fully documented, but there is no output schema, so the description must explain the return more clearly. 'Signed XDR-1 receipt' is underspecified; an agent would not know how to interpret the result or determine validity from the receipt.
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 describes the single 'phone' parameter adequately with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the E.164 structural requirements, including country code, digit range, and the no-leading-zero rule.
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 action: validate a phone number's E.164 structure, and specifies the criteria (+CC, 8-15 digits, no leading zero). It also adds context by naming the SMS/OTP dispatch use case, which distinguishes it from other format validators in the sibling list.
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 phrase 'before dispatching SMS alerts or OTPs' gives a concrete trigger for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for basic routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools occupy the same conceptual lane: batch_validate and vendor_onboarding_pack wrap the same individual *_check validations, the rental tools overlap heavily, and the on-chain balance/activity tools have fuzzy boundaries. Long descriptions help, but an agent can easily misselect between single, batch, and packaged verification calls.
Snake_case is used throughout, but the naming conventions are mixed: validation tools vary between *_check, *_format_check, and *_number_format, while other tools use bare noun phrases like autonomous_commercial_pipeline or action-first names like browse_*, get_*, and create_*. The inconsistency is readable but not predictable.
With 45 tools, the surface is far too large and sprawls across identifier checks, on-chain preflight, rental fraud, GPU cluster brokerage, and unrelated utilities like markdown scraping and schema verification. Several bundled tools could be consolidated to reduce redundancy.
The validation and preflight side is broad, and invoice create/get is covered, but the lifecycle is incomplete: there is no invoice update/cancel/list, no payment execution or refund path, and marketplace discovery tools lack booking or reservation counterparts. This is workable for verification-focused tasks but not a complete autonomous commerce rail.