CallMCP — Phone Call MCP Server

Apply Installation Update

agency_installation_apply_update

DestructiveIdempotent

Applies an approved update and re-queues setup, which replaces the client's live voice agent configuration. Requires agency write access or the client owner, a resolved update with no open conflicts, fresh owner approval, and (unless this client is the canary) an active canary on the same release. Applying an already-applied update changes nothing.

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>",
      "updateId": "<updateId>",
      "fingerprint": "<fingerprint>"
    },
    "name": "agency_installation_apply_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`updateId`	Yes	The approved update to apply.
`partnerId`	Yes	The agency (partner) workspace ID.
`fingerprint`	Yes	The fingerprint of the approved update.
`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

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations by naming what is destroyed (the live voice agent configuration), the authorization requirement (agency write access or client owner), the external state prerequisites (canary on same release), and a precise no-op case for re-applying. The idempotent and destructive hints are not merely restated but explained in operational terms.

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 tight sentences: effect first, preconditions second, edge case last. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the most consequential fact (live configuration replacement) is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the destructive scope, auth, external gating state, and idempotent behavior for a high-risk mutation. Nothing an agent needs before calling this successfully is missing.

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 100%, so all five parameters, including expectedRevision's optimistic-concurrency meaning, are already documented. The description adds precondition meaning around what 'approved update' entails but does not clarify the relationship between fingerprint, updateId, and expectedRevision beyond what the schema says. 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 ('Applies') and resource ('an approved update'), plus the concrete consequence: setup is re-queued and the client's live voice agent configuration is replaced. That consequence distinguishes it from approve/preview/resolve siblings without needing to open their schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a precise precondition set that acts as when-to-use gating: resolved update with no open conflicts, fresh owner approval, and an active canary on the same release unless this client is the canary. It does not explicitly route to the neighboring steps (preview_update, approve_update, resolve_update), so the agent must infer ordering from the prerequisites.

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.