Agent interaction server — Kazakhstan

Create or update the owner's party

save_party

DestructiveIdempotent

Create or update who the owner is: kind (person, sole proprietor, organization), activities (ОКЭД classes or pack categories; plain names are accepted), regions served, attributes with visibility, contacts, and policies for incoming interactions. Mode merge (default) changes only what you pass. Call with dry_run: true first and show the owner the preview. Put names and phones only into contacts or display_name. Without login this creates a draft and returns claim_url: the owner signs in, reviews, connects you and publishes on one screen.

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": {
      "party": "<party>"
    },
    "name": "save_party"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	No		merge
`party`	Yes
`dry_run`	No	true = save nothing; show exactly what would be published or sent. Use it to confirm with the owner first.
`client_request_id`	No	Idempotency key: repeating a call with the same key returns the original result. New key per intended action.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: merge semantics, the dry_run preview workflow, the no-login draft plus claim_url flow, and where names and phones belong. It still does not explain the destructive consequences of choosing replace mode, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded with the core purpose and key operational guidance. Every sentence adds information, though the long enumeration of fields makes it less scannable than it could be.

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?

For a complex nested tool with no output schema, it covers the main fields, dry_run, merge mode, and the unauthenticated draft workflow. It leaves gaps around replace-mode effects and normal return behavior, so an agent still lacks some context needed for fully safe use.

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?

It adds useful meaning beyond the 50%-covered schema: merge changes only what is passed, dry_run previews the result, activities accept plain names, and names/phones should go only into contacts or display_name. It does not describe client_request_id, but the schema already explains that idempotency key.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: create or update the owner's party profile. It clearly distinguishes the party entity from sibling tools like save_need and save_offerings by listing owner fields, but it does not explicitly name those alternatives for routing.

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?

It provides operational guidance: merge is the default and only changes supplied fields, and dry_run should be used first to show a preview. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus save_need or save_offerings, nor 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.

All Agent interaction server — Kazakhstan 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.

Resources

Need Help?