apollo-mcp

by dyngai

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

apollo_create_phone_call

Log phone calls to Apollo CRM with status, duration, caller info, and contact ID. Supports extra fields for recordings.

Instructions

Log a phone call in Apollo. Common fields are explicit; pass less-common fields (recording_url, etc.) via 'extra'.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "apollo_create_phone_call"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No
`extra`	No
`status`	No	e.g. 'completed', 'no_answer'
`user_id`	No
`duration`	No	Seconds
`called_at`	No	ISO 8601
`to_number`	No
`contact_id`	No
`from_number`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It explains the extra field mechanism but does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or success behavior. The existence of an output schema partially compensates for the return format.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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?

Given 9 optional parameters, an output schema exists, and no annotations, the description briefly covers purpose and parameter usage. It is sufficient for a simple creation tool but could be more comprehensive about each parameter's meaning.

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 coverage is only 33% (status, duration, called_at have descriptions). The description adds clarity on the role of 'extra' but does not provide additional semantics for the six undocumented parameters. It offers modest value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'Log a phone call in Apollo', specifying the verb (log) and resource (phone call). It distinguishes from siblings like apollo_update_phone_call by implying creation. The mention of common vs. less-common fields further clarifies scope.

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 provides guidance on how to use the tool by distinguishing common fields from less-common ones passed via 'extra'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_phone_call).

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

Deploy Server