CallMCP — Phone Call MCP Server

Approve Installation Update

agency_installation_approve_update

Idempotent

Records the client owner approving the updated script of a proposed update. Requires the client owner, the updateId and its fingerprint. It does not apply the update.

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_approve_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate safety. It adds real value with the explicit scope limitation ('It does not apply the update') and the client-owner requirement, but says nothing about prerequisites (is a prior preview or handoff needed?) or the effect of the approval.

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 action and ending with the key boundary. No filler or repetition.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the main remaining need is workflow context: what approval unlocks and how it relates to apply_update. The scope disclaimer partially covers this, but the description remains thin for a state-changing approval step in a multi-step update flow.

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%, with each of the five parameters documented including the rejection semantics of expectedRevision. The description's mention of client owner, updateId and fingerprint adds little beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: records the client owner's approval of an updated script for a proposed update. This distinguishes it from agency_installation_apply_update and agency_installation_approve_route_receipt, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use it (to record approval of a proposed update) and clarifies the boundary 'It does not apply the update,' but it never names alternatives like apply_update or revoke_approval, so the agent must infer the selection logic.

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.