CallMCP — Phone Call MCP Server

Prepare Review Request Campaign

agency_care_prepare_review

Idempotent

Saves the approved review-request texts as a draft campaign and reserves the listed customers. Requires the client owner, the sms:write scope, accepted set to true and the fingerprint from preview_review. It sends nothing; launch_review sends it.

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": {
      "partnerId": "<partnerId>",
      "installationId": "<installationId>",
      "expectedRevision": "<expectedRevision>",
      "fromNumber": "<fromNumber>",
      "milestones": "<milestones>",
      "minimumDays": "<minimumDays>"
    },
    "name": "agency_care_prepare_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`accepted`	No	Must be true to confirm the owner approves the exact texts and recipients.
`partnerId`	Yes	The agency (partner) workspace ID.
`campaignId`	No
`fromNumber`	Yes	The business number to send from (E.164).
`milestones`	Yes	The same milestones used in preview_review.
`fingerprint`	No	The fingerprint returned by preview_review.
`minimumDays`	Yes	The same minimumDays used in preview_review.
`installationId`	Yes	The agency package installation to act on.
`expectedRevision`	Yes	The installation revision you last read. The call is rejected if the installation has changed since.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No	Present when success is false
`receipt`	No
`success`	Yes	Whether the tool completed successfully

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false and idempotent=true; the description adds genuinely new context that nothing is sent, that customers are reserved, and that specific scope and ownership are required. It does not elaborate on what happens to a reserved draft later or on partial-failure behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: action first, then requirements, then the crucial non-sending clarification with the alternative. Nothing is padded or buried.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 9-parameter mutation with high schema coverage, existing annotations and an output schema, the description covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: prerequisites, the fact that no message is dispatched, and the follow-up tool. Return values and error shapes are delegated appropriately to structured fields.

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 89%, and the schema already documents fingerprint as 'returned by preview_review', milestones and minimumDays as the values used in preview_review, and accepted as the approval flag. The description restates those relationships rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: 'Saves the approved review-request texts as a draft campaign and reserves the listed customers.' It also distinguishes itself from two siblings by naming preview_review as the fingerprint source and launch_review as the tool that actually sends.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit workflow routing: fingerprint comes from preview_review, this tool only drafts, and launch_review is the one that sends. It also enumerates preconditions (client owner, sms:write scope, accepted=true), so an agent knows both where this sits in the sequence and what must be satisfied first.

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

All CallMCP — Phone Call MCP Server tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.