Finds and provides a link to a step-by-step tutorial or a blog post on the Vonage Developer blog. This tool is for when the user asks for a 'tutorial' or a 'guide' on a specific topic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The topic of the tutorial or guide (e.g., 'building a voice proxy', 'two-factor authentication', 'receiving a delivery receipt'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that the tool 'provides a link', but does not disclose behavior around missing results, whether it returns multiple options, or any underlying API/web scraping behavior. The description adds some context beyond the schema but lacks depth for a no-annotation tool.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word 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?
For a simple search-like tool with a single well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers what it does, what it returns (a link), and when to use it. It would be slightly more complete if it addressed failure behavior, but the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor gap.
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 description coverage is 100% with the 'query' parameter described as 'The topic of the tutorial or guide' with examples. The tool description does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema; it only reinforces that the query should be a topic. 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?
The description clearly states the tool 'Finds and provides a link to a step-by-step tutorial or a blog post on the Vonage Developer blog', identifying both the verb and the resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying tutorials/blog posts vs. other tool types like docs search or API reference.
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 description gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'when the user asks for a "tutorial" or a "guide" on a specific topic.' This is clear context, but it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Each tool has a well-defined, distinct purpose: API reference for endpoint details, code generator for snippets, docs search for general queries, SDK info for SDK specifics, troubleshooter for errors, tutorial finder for tutorials, and use case examples for real-world applications. Despite some potential overlap between search, tutorials, and use cases, the descriptions clearly delineate when to use each.
All tool names follow the consistent pattern 'vonage_' followed by a descriptive noun or noun phrase (e.g., api_reference, code_generator, docs_search). This makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand.
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of Vonage documentation (search, reference, code, SDK, troubleshooting, tutorials, use cases), and there are no redundant or unnecessary additions.
The tool set provides broad coverage of the documentation domain: finding docs, looking up API references, generating code, getting SDK info, troubleshooting, locating tutorials, and exploring use cases. There are no obvious gaps that would hamper common documentation tasks.
