CallMCP — Phone Call MCP Server

Set Emergency (911) Address

request_emergency_address

DestructiveIdempotent

Set the emergency (E911) service address for one of the business's phone numbers with the phone carrier, so a 911 call from that line reaches the right dispatcher. Needs phone_number, the full street address and disclosure_acknowledged true after the owner reads the 911 notice, plus the owner's confirmed approval. Replaces any address on file for that number. Returns needs_user_input, needs_approval, pending_approval, executed, denied or unsupported; only executed means the change was made.

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": {
      "phone_number": "<phone_number>",
      "address": "<address>",
      "disclosure_acknowledged": "<disclosure_acknowledged>",
      "idempotency_key": "<idempotency_key>"
    },
    "name": "request_emergency_address"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`actor`	No	Do not set. Kept for older clients; the signed-in connection identifies you.
`reason`	No	Why the change is being made; kept in the audit log.
`address`	Yes	Where the phone is used.
`dry_run`	No	Check access, inputs and approval without making the change.
`authority`	No	Do not set. It cannot approve a change: the owner approves through review_url or by being signed in.
`source_ref`	No	Optional reference for the request, such as a ticket or automation run ID.
`business_id`	No	Business ID. Required when the token can reach more than one business.
`phone_number`	Yes	The business line, in E.164 format.
`idempotency_key`	Yes	Required to make the change. Repeating a key returns the first outcome instead of running the change again.
`queue_for_approval`	No	When approval is missing, create a pending approval the owner can accept in the dashboard instead of returning needs_approval.
`disclosure_acknowledged`	Yes	True only after the owner has read and accepted the 911 service notice.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No
`error`	No	Present when success is false
`intent`	No
`result`	No
`status`	No
`message`	No
`success`	Yes	Whether the tool completed successfully
`summary`	No
`approval`	No
`request_id`	No
`risk_level`	No
`business_id`	No
`missing_fields`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 12, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / actor / description

Previous value: -"Who is asking: { type: agent|human|system|integration, id, display_name }."New value: +"Do not set. Kept for older clients; the signed-in connection identifies you."

changedInput schema / properties / authority / description

Previous value: -"How the owner approved this exact change: { mode: 'human_confirmed', confirmed_by, confirmed_at, confirmation_ref }. Without it the result is needs_approval and nothing changes."New value: +"Do not set. It cannot approve a change: the owner approves through review_url or by being signed in."

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description reinforces this by saying it replaces any address on file and that the change is submitted to an external carrier. It also explains the approval/disclosure gating and that only an 'executed' result means the change happened, which is meaningful context beyond the annotations. It does not cover rate limits or timing of carrier propagation, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three dense sentences that front-load the action, then requirements, then outcome states. Nothing is padding, though the return-state enumeration is lengthy and partly duplicated by the output schema.

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 an 11-param, nested-object, destructive, open-world mutation, the description covers the key requirements and the meaning of the result states, and an output schema exists to carry return shape. Minor gaps remain around optional parameters like dry_run and multi-business scoping, which the schema documents instead.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it ties disclosure_acknowledged to the owner having read the 911 notice and explains that owner approval is a separate gate from the request itself. It does not mention business_id, dry_run, queue_for_approval or idempotency_key, leaving those to the schema.

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 precise verb and resource: sets the E911 service address for a specific phone line with the carrier, and explains the real-world effect (911 calls reach the right dispatcher). That distinguishes it from siblings like set_owner_phone or request_extra_number without needing their schemas.

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 clear preconditions for use: a phone number, full street address, disclosure_acknowledged after the owner reads the 911 notice, and the owner's confirmed approval. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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.