CallMCP — Phone Call MCP Server

Assign Staff Member to Client

agency_profile_assign

Idempotent

Gives an active agency staff member access to one client business with the admin or member business role. Requires an agency owner or admin who can manage that client; only the owner can assign an admin staff member. Assigning an existing assignment again 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>",
      "userId": "<userId>",
      "businessId": "<businessId>",
      "businessRole": "<businessRole>"
    },
    "name": "agency_profile_assign"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`userId`	Yes	The agency staff member to assign.
`partnerId`	Yes	The agency (partner) workspace ID.
`businessId`	Yes	The client business to grant access to.
`businessRole`	Yes	Business role to grant: admin or member.

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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the 'assigning again changes nothing' sentence largely restates idempotency. The genuinely new behavioral content is the authorization model (owner/admin, owner-only for admin role), which the annotations do not express.

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 compact sentences: capability first, then authorization preconditions, then idempotency. No filler, and the most consequential constraint is not buried.

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?

With an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description need not explain return values, and it covers purpose, permissions and idempotency. It is slightly thin on how this differs from adjacent unassign/revoke operations, which is the main remaining gap.

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% with descriptive text on all four parameters and an enum on businessRole, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only echoes the role values and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Gives an active agency staff member access to one client business') and names the granted roles, so the effect is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like agency_profile_unassign or agency_profile_invite, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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 supplies real usage conditions: the caller must be an agency owner or admin who can manage that client, and only the owner may assign an admin staff member. It also notes that re-assigning an existing assignment is a no-op. What is missing is explicit routing versus sibling tools such as invite or unassign.

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.