CallMCP — Phone Call MCP Server

Record Agency Work Measurement

agency_support_measure

Records time spent or money for one client (setup, support, fulfillment, provider cost or retail receipt) with a note. Requires an agency owner, admin or operator with write access to that client. Each call adds a new record.

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>",
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "note": "<note>"
    },
    "name": "agency_support_measure"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes	setup, support, fulfillment, provider_cost or retail_receipt.
`note`	Yes	Short description of the work or amount.
`minutes`	No	Minutes spent, if measuring time.
`partnerId`	Yes	The agency (partner) workspace ID.
`businessId`	Yes	The client business the measurement is for.
`amountCents`	No	Amount in US cents, if measuring money.

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

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds two useful facts beyond them: the write-access role requirement and that 'Each call adds a new record', reinforcing non-idempotency. It says nothing about failure modes, duplicate handling, or whether minutes and amountCents can be sent together.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the permission requirement, then the additive-record behavior. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 only needs to frame scope, permissions and additivity, which it does. The one remaining ambiguity is whether minutes and amountCents are mutually exclusive, which is left unresolved.

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 the schema already explains every parameter including the kind enum, minutes and amountCents. The description only restates that a note accompanies a time-or-money entry, adding essentially no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Records time spent or money for one client', and enumerates the five measurement kinds (setup, support, fulfillment, provider cost, retail receipt). It is clearly distinct from enrollment or billing sibling tools, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

It states a prerequisite ('Requires an agency owner, admin or operator with write access to that client'), which is real guidance about when the call will succeed. However, it gives no when-to-use framing against siblings like agency_billing_record_adjustment, and no guidance on which of the five kinds to pick.

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.