CallMCP — Phone Call MCP Server

Approve Client Facts or Script

agency_installation_approve

Idempotent

Records the client owner approving either the intake facts or the voice script they reviewed. Requires the client owner and the matching hash from owner_preview. It does not install anything by itself.

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>",
      "businessId": "<businessId>",
      "sessionId": "<sessionId>",
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "subjectHash": "<subjectHash>"
    },
    "name": "agency_installation_approve"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`subject`	Yes	What is being approved: facts or script.
`partnerId`	Yes	The agency (partner) workspace ID.
`sessionId`	Yes	The agency enrollment session that prepared the preview.
`businessId`	Yes	The owner's business.
`subjectHash`	Yes	The factsHash or scriptHash returned by owner_preview.

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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful context that the hash must match a prior preview and that no installation occurs, but it doesn't say what happens on hash mismatch or how the approval is later revoked or superseded.

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, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the prerequisite and the scope caveat. No filler or repeated schema content.

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?

With a full output schema and rich annotations, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers prerequisites and effect scope adequately. The remaining gap is the interaction with approval revocation and the downstream install step, which an agent may need to know.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by tying subjectHash to the owner_preview output, explaining what the hash must correspond to rather than just its format. It also frames subject as the reviewed artifact being approved.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Records the client owner approving either the intake facts or the voice script") and scopes it to a review-then-approve step. It implicitly separates itself from installation siblings with "It does not install anything by itself," though it never names a concrete alternative tool.

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?

It states a clear precondition — the client owner plus the matching hash produced by owner_preview — which tells an agent when this call is valid. It lacks an explicit when-not or a pointer to the follow-on/sibling tool (e.g. the apply step) for actually installing.

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.