CallMCP — Phone Call MCP Server

Recheck Trust Level

recheck_trust_level

Destructive

Recompute one business's KaiCalls trust level now from its live account activity (card on file, paid bills, days active, real customer calls) and save the result, the same recheck the dashboard runs, for example right after the owner adds a card. Returns the same view as get_trust_level plus whether the level moved up or down. Requires current business membership. Replaces the saved derived state, may record level-change history and may email the current owner when standing changes. It can only reflect what the account has earned; it never sets or raises a level by request.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "recheck_trust_level"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`focus`	No	'standing' (default): the current level and next steps. 'ladder': every level. 'level': the one named in level. 'outbound': today's outbound calls and texts against the limits this level allows, and the step that raises them.
`level`	No	A level key or name, e.g. 'pro'. Used with focus 'level'.
`business_id`	No	Business ID (optional only when the token reaches exactly one business).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`held`	No
`line`	No
`next`	No
`error`	No	Present when success is false
`level`	No
`moved`	No
`detail`	No
`ladder`	No
`meters`	No
`quests`	No
`success`	Yes	Whether the tool completed successfully
`progress`	No
`rechecked`	No
`business_id`	No
`computed_at`	No
`previous_level`	No
`next_opens_later`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing side effects: it replaces saved derived state, may record level-change history, and may email the current owner. It also states the authorization requirement ('Requires current business membership') and explains the recompute-from-live-activity model, which justifies the non-idempotent hint.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then side effects, then the guardrail against misuse. The sentences are dense and each carries information, though the parenthetical activity list and the double explanation of return shape make it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers what matters: what it recomputes, what it overwrites, what side effects may fire, membership requirements, and the constraint that it cannot be used to force a level. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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%, so focus, level, and business_id are already fully documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only the implicit 'one business' scoping note and says nothing about the focus enum or the level key.

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 ('Recompute one business's KaiCalls trust level ... and save the result') and defines the exact scope of inputs used (card on file, paid bills, days active, real customer calls). It also differentiates from the read-only sibling by noting it returns 'the same view as get_trust_level plus whether the level moved up or down'.

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 a concrete triggering scenario ('for example right after the owner adds a card') and identifies itself as 'the same recheck the dashboard runs', which anchors when to call it. It also rules out an abuse case ('never sets or raises a level by request'), though it never explicitly says to use get_trust_level instead when a pure read is wanted.

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.