Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
apollo-mcp

apollo-mcp

by dyngai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

apollo_update_phone_call

Update an existing phone call record by providing its ID and optional fields like status, duration, note, or extra data.

Instructions

Update a phone-call record via PATCH /phone_calls/{id}.

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": {
      "phone_call_id": "<phone_call_id>"
    },
    "name": "apollo_update_phone_call"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNo
extraNo
statusNo
durationNo
phone_call_idYesPhone-call ID

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the endpoint and method, lacking details on side effects, authorization needs, or update semantics (e.g., partial vs. full update).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, but it contains the essential purpose. However, it could benefit from additional information 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?

Given the moderate complexity (5 parameters, 1 required) and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what fields are updatable, validation rules, or error conditions, even though an output schema exists.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description does not explain any parameters beyond the input schema, which has only 20% coverage. The tool description adds no meaning to note, extra, status, or duration.

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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'phone-call record', and includes the HTTP method and endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'apollo_create_phone_call'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to update vs. create a phone call. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools