CallMCP — Phone Call MCP Server

Create or Update Agent Knowledge

upsert_knowledge

Destructive

Create a new agent knowledge base entry, or update one when id is provided. Creating requires title, content, and content_type.

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": "upsert_knowledge"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Knowledge item ID to update (omit to create).
`tags`	No
`title`	No
`content`	No
`category`	No
`business_id`	No	Business ID. Required for create when the token can access multiple businesses.
`content_type`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No	Present when success is false
`success`	Yes	Whether the tool completed successfully
`knowledge`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already flag the operation as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds that creating requires title, content, and content_type, which is genuinely useful, but it does not disclose that an update overwrites existing content or how tags behave on update.

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 short sentences, both front-loaded and load-bearing: the first defines the mode switch, the second defines the create preconditions. Nothing is redundant with the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Because an output schema exists, return values need no explanation. However, for a destructive upsert the description omits the consequence of updating (content replacement) and the semantics of half the parameters, so an agent could call it correctly but not confidently.

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?

At 29% schema coverage and an empty required array, the description does real work by naming the three fields required to create. It adds nothing about `content_type` allowed values, `tags` merge-vs-replace behavior, or `category`, leaving several of the seven parameters undocumented anywhere.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('create') and resource ('agent knowledge base entry') plus the update branch keyed on `id`. This lets an agent understand the dual create/update mode without reading the schema, though it does not differentiate against any sibling tool by name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives one explicit routing rule: pass `id` to update, omit it to create. It offers no guidance on when to prefer this over related tools (e.g., `list_knowledge` for reads) and no exclusion for cases where an update would be inappropriate.

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.