CallMCP — Phone Call MCP Server

Record Email Permission

record_email_consent

Idempotent

Record that existing customers gave the business permission to email them, with evidence_ref saying where that permission came from. Pass lead_id and email for one customer, or emails for up to 200. Addresses that are not existing customers are skipped and listed. Sends no email. Needs an admin of the business. Each record states that the owner holds that permission.

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": {
      "business_id": "<business_id>",
      "evidence_ref": "<evidence_ref>"
    },
    "name": "record_email_consent"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	No	That customer's email address.
`emails`	No	Email addresses of existing customers, up to 200, as an alternative to lead_id.
`lead_id`	No	One existing customer (lead id), paired with email.
`expires_at`	No	Optional: when the permission ends (ISO date).
`business_id`	Yes	The business that sends the email.
`evidence_ref`	Yes	Where the permission came from or why it is withdrawn, e.g. 'web form opt-in' or 'customer asked to stop'.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No
`code`	No
`error`	No	Present when success is false
`action`	No
`status`	No
`success`	Yes	Whether the tool completed successfully
`senderId`	No
`fingerprint`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds real behavior beyond that: no email is actually sent, non-customer addresses are skipped and returned in a list, admin permission is required, and each stored record asserts the owner holds the permission. It doesn't state whether re-recording an existing consent overwrites or extends it, which is the one gap given idempotentHint=true.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the key argument (evidence_ref) and the two input shapes. The closing sentence about each record stating the owner holds permission is slightly cryptic but carries compliance meaning rather than filler.

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 present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the admin prerequisite, the skip-and-list behavior, and the no-email side effect. The only meaningful omissions are the overwrite semantics for repeat calls and any note on expires_at handling, both minor for a 6-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds a little — the lead_id+email pairing for a single customer versus the bulk emails array capped at 200, and the intent of evidence_ref — but it does not clarify expires_at or how the two input shapes interact if both are supplied.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Record that existing customers gave the business permission to email them.' The clause 'Sends no email' explicitly separates it from the campaign-sending siblings, and the pairing with revoke_email_consent is implicit in the direction of the operation (grant vs. withdraw).

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 gives concrete invocation guidance: 'Pass lead_id and email for one customer, or emails for up to 200,' plus a prerequisite ('Needs an admin of the business') and a scope rule ('Addresses that are not existing customers are skipped'). It stops short of naming revoke_email_consent as the alternative for withdrawal, so exclusions are only implied.

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.