Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

CallMCP — Phone Call MCP Server

by ai.callmcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Preview Installation Update

agency_installation_preview_update
Idempotent

Prepares a proposed update to a newer published offer version, or a rollback to an earlier installation revision, and lists any conflicts with client changes. Requires agency write access to the client or the client owner. It saves the proposal for review but does not apply it; client facts are always kept.

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_preview_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
partnerIdYesThe agency (partner) workspace ID.
installationIdYesThe agency package installation to act on.
offerVersionIdNoPublished offer version to update to. Either this or rollbackRevision is required.
expectedRevisionYesThe installation revision you last read. The call is rejected if the installation has changed since.
rollbackRevisionNoEarlier installation revision to roll back to.

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds real behavioral context: an authorization requirement, the fact that a proposal artifact is persisted for review, that conflicts with client changes are surfaced, and that client facts are preserved. It leaves the proposal's lifecycle (expiry, who approves) unstated, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its two modes, then permissions, then side-effect scope. No redundant restatement of the title. Slightly dense but every sentence carries information; the closing 'client facts are always kept' is terse to the point of being casually worded.

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?

For a non-destructive preview/proposal tool with an output schema (which covers return values) and full schema descriptions, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: authorization, non-application, conflict reporting, and data preservation. Only the downstream proposal workflow remains implicit, which the approve/apply siblings likely cover.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented, including the offerVersionId/rollbackRevision exclusivity and the expectedRevision concurrency check. The description mentions the two modes but adds no format, syntax, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Prepares a proposed update') and resource (an installation), and covers both supported modes: advancing to a newer published offer version or rolling back to an earlier revision. The clause 'does not apply it' cleanly separates it from the apply sibling without needing to name it.

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 establishes the workflow context clearly: this produces a proposal for review rather than applying anything, which implies the apply/approve step follows. It also names the prerequisite (agency write access to the client or client owner). It stops short of explicitly naming when-not or which alternative sibling to use for each case.

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