bluecolumn-mcp

call_complete

Persist call-end updates to memory: record new memories, follow-up needs, and sentiment shifts for a customer after a call.

Instructions

NEW (Audio Intelligence): Store what changed after a call ends.

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": {
      "call_id": "<call_id>",
      "customer_id": "<customer_id>"
    },
    "name": "call_complete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`call_id`	Yes
`customer_id`	Yes
`new_memories`	No
`follow_up_required`	No
`sentiment_improved`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Store', which implies a write operation, but it does not explain side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or what happens if the call_id does not exist. This is a significant gap for a 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 a single sentence and is front-loaded with the purpose. The prefix 'NEW (Audio Intelligence):' adds context but is not strictly necessary. It is concise and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With five parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the expected inputs are, what the return value looks like, or any preconditions. Given the tool's complexity, more detail is needed for an agent to use it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters. It says 'what changed' but does not map that to 'new_memories', 'follow_up_required', or 'sentiment_improved'. The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which is insufficient.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Store what changed after a call ends.' It uses a specific verb ('Store') and identifies the resource (what changed in a call). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'call_prepare' by focusing on post-call completion, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

The description gives clear timing context: 'after a call ends.' This implies when to use the tool. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which would justify a 5. The context is sufficient for basic usage guidance.

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

Deploy Server