CallMCP — Phone Call MCP Server

Revoke Email Permission

revoke_email_consent

DestructiveIdempotent

Take back email permission for existing customers so no campaign can email them. Pass lead_id and email for one customer, or emails for up to 200, with evidence_ref saying why. Needs an admin of the business.

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": "revoke_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.
`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`evidence_ref`	Yes	Where the permission came from or why it is withdrawn, e.g. 'web form opt-in' or 'customer asked to stop'.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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the downstream effect (campaigns can no longer email these customers) and the admin authorization requirement, neither of which appears in the annotations or schema.

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 effect, then the two calling modes, then the permission requirement. No filler, no restatement of the title, and every clause carries either scope, invocation shape, or a prerequisite.

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 destructive, idempotent, 5-parameter mutation with a full schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs before calling: effect, auth requirement, and parameter pairing. It omits whether a revocation can be undone or re-recorded, a minor gap given that record_email_consent exists as the counterpart.

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 description coverage is 100%, so a 3 would be the baseline; the description exceeds it by explaining the pairing rule ('lead_id and email for one customer') and that 'emails' is an alternative to lead_id, relationships that are not explicit in the flat schema. The 'up to 200' detail is redundant with maxItems, keeping it from a 5.

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 ('Take back email permission') plus the operational consequence ('so no campaign can email them'), which makes the opposite direction from record_email_consent self-evident. The scope restriction to 'existing customers' further bounds it so an agent can distinguish it from any consent-granting sibling.

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 concrete invocation shapes — 'Pass lead_id and email for one customer, or emails for up to 200' — and a hard prerequisite, 'Needs an admin of the business,' which is real when-to-use guidance. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use this one (e.g. for prospects who never opted in), so it falls short of a 5.

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.