Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

CallMCP — Phone Call MCP Server

by ai.callmcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Resolve Update Conflicts

agency_installation_resolve_update
Idempotent

Chooses, for each conflicting setting in a proposed package update, whether to keep the client's current value or use the package value, and saves the resolved update. Requires the client owner and the update's fingerprint; client facts cannot be overridden this way. It does not apply the update, and the resolved version needs fresh owner approval.

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>",
      "choices": "<choices>"
    },
    "name": "agency_installation_resolve_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
choicesYesFor every conflict path listed by preview_update: keep_client or use_package.
updateIdYesThe proposed update returned by preview_update.
partnerIdYesThe agency (partner) workspace ID.
fingerprintYesThe fingerprint of the proposed update.
installationIdYesThe agency package installation to act on.
expectedRevisionYesThe installation revision you last read. The call is rejected if the installation has changed since.

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), the description discloses an authorization requirement (client owner), a required fingerprint, the fact that the resolved update is persisted but not applied, the hard limit that client facts cannot be overridden, and that the resolved version requires fresh owner approval. That is exactly the post-write consequence and follow-up an agent needs.

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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action before prerequisites and exclusions. Every clause carries information an agent needs to act correctly.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a six-parameter mutation with a nested choices object and an output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, mutation scope, and the follow-up approval step without needing to explain return values. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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% and every parameter is documented in the schema, including choices mapping to keep_client/use_package and expectedRevision's optimistic-concurrency semantics. The description reinforces that the fingerprint is mandatory but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource: chooses keep_client/use_package per conflicting setting and saves the resolved update. It also draws the boundary against siblings by noting it 'does not apply the update' and that conflicts come from preview_update, so an agent can distinguish it from agency_installation_apply_update and agency_installation_preview_update.

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?

The description makes clear this is the resolution step for conflicts surfaced by preview_update, that it requires the client owner, and that client facts cannot be overridden this way, plus the exclusion that applying is a separate step needing fresh owner approval. It stops short of naming the apply tool explicitly as the follow-up alternative, leaving that to inference from sibling names.

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