KaiCalls
Server Details
AI phone secretary: place calls, read transcripts, list calls, agents, and stats.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.6/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect: call status, business info, transcript, agents, and recent calls. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (check, get, get, list, list) with clear resources, making naming predictable.
5 tools is well-scoped for a call management API, covering key operations without unnecessary bloat or under-coverage.
Covers essential read operations (status, transcript, agents, calls, business info). Minor gap: no update or delete call operations, but likely complete for the intended use case.
Available Tools
6 toolscheck_call_statusCheck Call StatusARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Check the status of a call by its ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| call_id | Yes | The call ID to check |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| call | No | |
| error | No | Present when success is false |
| success | Yes | Whether the tool completed successfully |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, which is adequate but not improved upon.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, single-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is functionally complete. However, it could briefly mention what status values might be returned or any caching behavior for better completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for its single parameter, and the description merely restates 'by its ID' without adding format, validation, or additional context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Check the status of a call by its ID' clearly states the action (check), resource (call), and key parameter (ID), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_business_info or get_transcript by focusing specifically on status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or scenarios where other tools would be preferred, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_business_infoGet Business InfoARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Get business information, agent count, and recent call stats
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| business_id | No | Business ID (optional, defaults to first accessible business) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| error | No | Present when success is false |
| success | Yes | Whether the tool completed successfully |
| business | No | |
| agent_count | No | |
| calls_last_30_days | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns agent count and call stats, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like authentication requirements or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that gets straight to the point. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a single optional parameter and an output schema (which removes need to explain return format), the description adequately describes what the tool returns. However, it could briefly mention what 'business information' includes for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the single optional parameter. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves business information, agent count, and recent call stats. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_agents (only agents) and list_recent_calls (only calls).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when aggregated business data is needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_transcriptGet TranscriptARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Get the transcript and summary of a completed call
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| call_id | Yes | The call ID to get the transcript for |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| call | No | |
| error | No | Present when success is false |
| success | Yes | Whether the tool completed successfully |
| transcript | No | |
| transcript_length | No | |
| transcript_available | No | |
| transcript_truncated | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds only that the tool gets transcript and summary of a completed call, contributing minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of 9 words with no unnecessary information. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a simple single parameter, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and key condition (completed call). No critical gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'call_id' already documented. The description's mention of 'completed call' adds context but does not meaningfully extend parameter semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves both transcript and summary of a completed call, using the verb 'get' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like check_call_status or list_recent_calls, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'completed call', implying the call must be finished, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_call_status to verify completion first. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_agentsList AgentsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List KaiCalls agents available to the authenticated account
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return (default 50, max 100) | |
| offset | No | Zero-based pagination offset (default 0) | |
| business_id | No | Business ID to filter by (optional, must be accessible) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | No | |
| error | No | Present when success is false |
| limit | No | |
| agents | No | |
| offset | No | |
| filters | No | |
| success | Yes | Whether the tool completed successfully |
| has_more | No | |
| next_offset | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent. Description adds scope (authenticated account) but no other behavioral details like results format or pagination beyond schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence, no unnecessary words, front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Sufficient given annotations and schema. Could optionally mention pagination defaults or that output is array, but output schema handles that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema provides full parameter descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds no extra meaning to parameters, so baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Verb 'List' specifies operation, resource 'KaiCalls agents' is clear, and 'available to authenticated account' adds scope. Distinguishes from siblings which are about calls, transcripts, business info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit comparison to siblings. Usage is implied by purpose; no when-not-to-use or alternative guidance. Could mention that this is for browsing agents vs. checking call status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_recent_callsList Recent CallsBRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List recent calls for the authenticated business
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return (default 20, max 100) | |
| offset | No | Zero-based pagination offset (default 0) | |
| status | No | Filter by status (optional) | |
| agent_id | No | Filter by agent ID (optional) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| calls | No | |
| count | No | |
| error | No | Present when success is false |
| limit | No | |
| offset | No | |
| filters | No | |
| success | Yes | Whether the tool completed successfully |
| has_more | No | |
| next_offset | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal context (authenticated business) but does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it could be slightly expanded with key details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and good annotations, the description omits details like default ordering, recency definition, and result format, leaving gaps for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description; the tool description adds no further meaning beyond what is in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists recent calls for the authenticated business, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like check_call_status or get_transcript.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_call_status or get_transcript; lacks exclusions or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
make_callMake CallADestructiveInspect
Initiate a real outbound phone call via a KaiCalls AI agent
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Phone number to call (E.164 format, e.g. +19085551234) | |
| name | No | Caller/lead name (optional) | |
| context | No | Call context or reason (optional) | |
| lead_id | No | Existing lead ID to associate (optional) | |
| agent_id | Yes | KaiCalls agent ID to use for the call | |
| first_message | No | Override the agent greeting message (optional) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| call | No | |
| error | No | Present when success is false |
| success | Yes | Whether the tool completed successfully |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds 'real' and 'via KaiCalls AI agent', but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, 14 words, front-loaded with key action and context. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Description is minimal given 6 parameters and output schema. While annotations and schema cover much, the description misses context like prerequisites (e.g., agent must be active). However, output schema exists so return values are documented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter information. It adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Initiate'), resource ('real outbound phone call'), and context ('via KaiCalls AI agent'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_call_status or list_recent_calls.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as prerequisites or when not to use. The purpose implies usage but lacks explicit when/when-not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!