OsmO AI Receptionist

Update Call Settings

update_settings

Destructive

Changes the user's call settings; only the settings passed are changed. Without confirmed:true nothing changes: it returns confirmation_required with the exact change. Names, the greeting and the voice are changed in the OsmO app, not here.

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": "update_settings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`vipList`	No	The full new VIP (never screened) list, in full international form. It replaces the stored list.
`blockList`	No	The full new blocked list, in full international form. It replaces the stored list.
`confirmed`	No	true means the user has approved the confirmation_required preview returned by an earlier call with the same arguments, and carries it out. Without it nothing changes and that preview is returned.
`extraPolite`	No	India: greet callers by name with "ji".
`transferMode`	No	'never', 'contacts' or 'anyone': who may be put through to the user live.
`liveCallAlerts`	No	'quiet', 'contacts' or 'all'.
`skipAllContacts`	No	true lets saved contacts skip the AI.
`deviceScreeningMode`	No	Android: 'off', 'unknown' or 'all'.
`isAiAnsweringPaused`	No	true stops the AI answering calls.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the critical non-obvious behavior: the call is a two-phase confirmation flow in which nothing mutates until confirmed:true is passed with the same arguments, and a preview containing the exact change is returned otherwise. This is exactly the safety-critical context the agent needs and cannot infer from 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the verb and mutation scope, with zero filler. The compressed punctuation around 'Without confirmed:true nothing changes:' is slightly telegraphic but does not obscure meaning.

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 nine-parameter, mostly-optional destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: partial-update semantics, the confirmation gate, and the confirmation_required preview. It does not describe the shape of a successful (post-confirmation) response, which is the only notable gap.

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%, including the confirmed gate and the replacement semantics of vipList/blockList, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces the confirmed parameter's meaning but adds no syntax or format detail for the remaining eight parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Changes the user's call settings') plus a precise mutation scope ('only the settings passed are changed'). It also draws a boundary against adjacent settings (names, greeting, voice are changed in the OsmO app, not here), so an agent can tell both what this does and what it does not do without opening the schema.

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 explicit two-step usage guidance: call without confirmed:true to receive a confirmation_required preview, then re-call with confirmed:true to execute. It also sets an exclusion for names/greeting/voice, though it routes those to 'the OsmO app' rather than to a named sibling tool such as update_assistant, leaving the alternative tool implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All OsmO AI Receptionist 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.