Skip to main content
Glama

Agent Broker

by io.github.basilalshukaili

call_business

Destructive

Place a conversational voice-AI phone call to a business on a consumer's behalf and return a structured answer. THE differentiated capability: reach the ~60M long-tail SMBs that have NO API and NO booking page — only a phone number. An AI agent cannot pick up a phone and hold a conversation; this tool does. Give a plain-language objective; the voice AI navigates the call and extracts the answer. Business-directed (B2B), far less restricted than calling consumers — but the compliance gate still enforces recording consent per jurisdiction. Async: returns a call handle; poll get_outcome for the transcript + extracted fields.

WHEN TO USE: Use when the target business has NO booking URL and NO API — only a phone number — and the consumer asked the agent to reach them (e.g. 'call this plumber and ask if they can come Tuesday', 'ask the salon if they take walk-ins this afternoon'). Also use to confirm details a booking page doesn't expose (real-time availability, custom quotes). WHEN NOT TO USE: Do NOT use when the business has a booking URL — use import_booking_url + schedule_appointment (cheaper, faster, deterministic). Do NOT use for calls to consumers/individuals (this tool is for reaching businesses). Do NOT use for marketing or telemarketing — the compliance gate and the B2B-only framing reject that. COST: $0.2 per_call LATENCY: ~45000ms EXECUTION: async_by_default (use get_outcome to retrieve result)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
smb_idNoKnown SMB identifier with a phone on record. Provide this OR business_phone.
objectiveYesWhat the call should accomplish, in plain language.
country_codeNoISO 3166-1 alpha-2 for compliance + recording-consent routing.
on_behalf_ofNoName of the consumer the call is placed for.
business_phoneNoBusiness phone in E.164 (e.g. +14045550123). Provide this OR smb_id.
extract_fieldsNoStructured fields to pull from the answer, e.g. ['available_tomorrow','price_quote','earliest_slot'].
idempotency_keyNoOptional client-supplied key for safe retries. Replaying the same key within 24h returns the original receipt - the operation is NOT re-executed and NOT re-charged.
max_duration_secondsNo

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description discloses async execution (returns handle, poll get_outcome), B2B-only framing, compliance gate for recording consent per jurisdiction, cost per call, and latency. These go beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) and provide critical operational context for correct invocation.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose, when to use/not use, cost, latency, execution. Front-loads the key differentiator and scoping. Each sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Covers all necessary aspects: async workflow, return mechanism (get_outcome), compliance constraints, cost/latency, param relationships (OR condition), and alternatives. For a complex tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient guidance for an agent to call it correctly and understand what to expect.

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 88%, so baseline is 3. Description adds overall context (plain-language objective, OR condition for smb_id/business_phone) but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already documents for individual parameters. Minor additional value but not substantial.

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 ('Place a conversational voice-AI phone call'), the resource ('business'), and the consumer's behalf. Clearly differentiates from siblings by emphasizing the ~60M long-tail SMBs without API/booking page, which no other tool addresses. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections. Names exact trigger conditions (no booking URL/API, consumer request to reach business) and explicitly excludes alternatives like import_booking_url + schedule_appointment, plus telemarketing and calls to consumers. Provides clear decision logic.

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

All Agent Broker toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose with detailed descriptions and explicit WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE guidance. Potential overlaps like send_message vs. send_transactional_confirmation are well-differentiated by idempotency and use case, and compliance tools (check_compliance, screen_sanctions, map_trade_restriction) operate on different scopes without ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use lowercase snake_case and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (call_business, check_quota, find_business, send_message, verify_company_record). Even less standard verbs like lookup, map, and mint follow the same structural convention, and there are no mixed casing styles or inconsistent naming patterns.

Tool Count4/5

With 23 tools, this is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the breadth of the server's purpose—covering communication, scheduling, compliance, trade screening, and operational utilities—justifies the count. Each tool addresses a distinct capability area, and the set is not bloated with redundant or trivial functions.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of the broker's domain: business discovery, booking (check, import, schedule), communication (send, receive, read), compliance (pre-flight checks, sanctions, trade restrictions, company verification), and operational support (quota, health, cost preview, key minting, async status/outcome). There are no obvious dead ends or missing critical operations for the stated purpose.

Resources