flowforge-mcp

flowforge_start_batch_calls

Start up to 100 outbound calls in one batch with a single assistant, assigning per-recipient template variables and reference IDs, then receive success, failure, and call ID results.

Instructions

Place up to 100 outbound calls in a single batch with one assistant.

Each recipient may carry its own template_variables and a reference_id you can match against the results.

Args: params: assistant_id, calls (1-100 BatchCallItem objects), optional caller_phone_number and delay_between_calls_ms.

Returns: JSON/Markdown with total_requested, successful, failed and a results array (each item has phone_number, success, call_id, error, reference_id).

Error Handling: Returns "Error: Validation failed..." if any recipient is malformed.

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": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "flowforge_start_batch_calls"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare that this is non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the 1-100 recipient limit, per-recipient reference_id/template_variables, partial success reporting through successful/failed/results, and validation failure behavior. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or billing/cost implications, but it is reasonably transparent for a batch mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and organized into Args, Returns, and Error Handling sections. It is generally efficient, though a few details such as the recipient personalization note could be folded more tightly into the parameter explanation.

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 batch-call tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, key inputs, return fields, and validation errors. It leaves out prerequisites such as assistant existence or phone-number ownership, but the core information needed to call the tool correctly is present.

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?

The description lists the main parameters and clarifies the 1-100 BatchCallItem constraint, but it omits response_format even though that parameter exists in the schema. The schema itself documents nested fields such as phone_number, reference_id, template_variables, and delay limits, so the description adds some but not comprehensive meaning.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: placing up to 100 outbound calls in a single batch with one assistant. It clearly distinguishes batch calling from sibling single-call or campaign tools through the explicit batch scope and recipient-list structure.

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?

The batch use case is implied clearly by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over flowforge_start_call, flowforge_create_campaign, or flowforge_add_campaign_leads. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer fit from the tool name and batch limit.

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

Deploy Server