Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

CallMCP — Phone Call MCP Server

by ai.callmcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Preview Client Facts and Script

agency_installation_owner_preview
Read-onlyIdempotent

Shows the client owner the exact intake facts and voice script prepared for their business, with the hashes needed to approve each. Only the client owner can view it, and only after the agency prepared a complete preview. 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>",
      "businessId": "<businessId>",
      "sessionId": "<sessionId>"
    },
    "name": "agency_installation_owner_preview"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
partnerIdYesThe agency (partner) workspace ID.
sessionIdYesThe agency enrollment session that prepared the preview.
businessIdYesThe owner's business.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoPresent when success is false
receiptNo
successYesWhether the tool completed successfully

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: an authorization constraint (owner-only) and a prerequisite (a complete preview must exist). However, 'It changes nothing' merely restates readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, and there is no disclosure of behavior when the precondition fails or of the hash semantics used downstream.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is shown, followed by access rules. Only the closing 'It changes nothing' is arguably redundant given the read-only annotations.

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 return contents need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the access model and precondition, leaving only failure-mode behavior unspecified — a minor gap for a read-only preview tool.

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 all three UUID parameters documented, so the baseline is 3. The description contextualizes sessionId as 'the agency enrollment session that prepared the preview' but adds no format, constraint, or per-parameter detail beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Shows') and specific content ('intake facts and voice script ... with the hashes needed to approve each'), which is far more informative than the title alone. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the approve/apply siblings by framing this as the read-side that produces hashes, but it never names a sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 two concrete preconditions: the caller must be the client owner, and the agency must have already prepared a complete preview. What is missing is any explicit routing to alternatives — e.g. what to call when the preview is not yet complete, or which sibling performs the approval after viewing.

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 toolsInspect
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.

Resources