CallMCP — Phone Call MCP Server

Export Installation Configuration

agency_installation_export

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the installation release, intake facts, approved script, staff sheet and checks for handoff or records. Requires client membership or agency assignment to the client. It 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>"
    },
    "name": "agency_installation_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`accepted`	No
`partnerId`	Yes	The agency (partner) workspace ID.
`fingerprint`	No
`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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety basics. It adds value by describing the exact bundle returned and the authorization prerequisite, and reinforces 'It changes nothing.' It does not mention the concurrency guard from expectedRevision, which would have been a useful behavioral note.

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 with no wasted wording. The return contents are front-loaded, followed by the access requirement and the no-side-effects guarantee.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in depth, though it helpfully lists the exported components. It covers authorization and mutation behavior. The main missing piece is any mention of expectedRevision concurrency semantics, which the schema covers but the description ignores.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description contains no information about any of the five parameters. The schema documents partnerId, installationId and expectedRevision, but accepted and fingerprint remain undocumented in both places (60% coverage). With no compensating parameter explanation in the description, this is a clear gap.

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 uses a specific verb (Returns) and enumerates the exported contents: installation release, intake facts, approved script, staff sheet and checks. It states the purpose 'for handoff or records', which gives a concrete use case. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling preview/approve tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for handoff or records' implies when to use this export, and the membership/assignment requirement is a useful prerequisite. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of sibling preview or approve handoff tools, and no stated exclusions.

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.