CallMCP — Phone Call MCP Server

Report an Issue

report_issue

Report a problem with your KaiCalls agent, phone number, billing, or account. Saves the report to your change history and notifies KaiCalls support so a person can follow up on anything broken or not working as expected.

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": {
      "summary": "<summary>",
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "report_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`summary`	Yes	One-line summary of the problem (max 200 characters).
`category`	No	What part of the product this issue relates to.	other
`severity`	No	How badly this is affecting the business.	medium
`business_id`	No	Business ID (optional only when the token can access exactly one business).
`description`	Yes	Full details: what happened, what you expected, and any relevant call or time.
`reporter_email`	No	Email address support should reply to, if different from the account email.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No	Present when success is false
`success`	Yes	Whether the tool completed successfully
`category`	No
`severity`	No
`report_id`	No
`business_id`	No
`support_notified`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description usefully discloses two side effects: the report is written to change history and KaiCalls support is notified for human follow-up. It does not warn that repeat calls create duplicate reports, which matters given idempotentHint=false, and says nothing about response shape despite an output schema existing.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the action and affected scope front-loaded and the post-submission behavior immediately after. Nothing is repeated from the structured fields.

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?

For a 6-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose and downstream effects adequately. The remaining gap is duplicate-submission behavior on a non-idempotent write, which the agent would need to know before retrying.

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 every parameter is already documented. The description restates the subject areas that loosely map to the category enum (agent, phone number, billing, account) but adds no guidance on severity levels, business_id requirements, or what makes a good summary.

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-plus-resource ('Report a problem') and enumerates the domains covered (agent, phone number, billing, account). It is clearly a support-escalation tool, distinguishable from the reporting/analytics siblings such as agency_report_generate or get_lsa_report.

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 a clear condition for use: 'anything broken or not working as expected', and implies this is for human follow-up rather than self-service fixes. It stops short of naming when not to use it (e.g., duplicates, already-open tickets) or pointing to any alternative flow.

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.