Skip to main content
Glama
okareo-ai

Okareo MCP Server

Official
by okareo-ai

Ingest Conversations

ingest_conversations

Submit completed voice conversations to Okareo for monitoring. Each valid conversation becomes evaluable data points that trigger configured checks; invalid entries are returned for corrections.

Instructions

Submit completed voice conversations to Okareo for monitoring.

    Each conversation's turns become evaluable data points and any
    configured monitors run their checks automatically. Use this to feed
    production voice traffic (Retell, Twilio, VAPI, ElevenLabs, or a custom
    source) into Okareo monitoring.

    Conversations are validated individually: valid ones are ingested and
    invalid ones are returned in a "rejected" list — the batch is not
    all-or-nothing.

    Args:
        conversations: List of conversation objects. Each MUST include a
            "call_id" and at least one of: "transcript" (a list of
            {role, content, timestamp_ms} turns), "audio"
            ({"type": "url"|"voice_file_id"|"inline_b64", ...}),
            "recording_url", or "recording_bytes_b64". Optional per
            conversation: "context_token", "metadata", "tags" (tags drive
            monitor/filter-group matching), "diarization", "first_turn".
            When both a transcript and audio are supplied, the transcript
            takes precedence.
        project_id: Okareo project ID. Defaults to the account's project.
        mut_id: Optional model-under-test ID. Omit for pure monitoring —
            data points are then matched to monitors by their tags only.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mut_idNo
project_idNo
conversationsYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

Even with annotations present (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description adds substantial behavioral context: turns become evaluable data points, monitors run automatically, validation is per-conversation (not all-or-nothing), rejected list is returned, and transcript precedence when both transcript and audio are provided. This goes beyond what annotations reveal.

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?

The description is structured effectively: a clear opening sentence, a usage paragraph, a validation behavior sentence, and a well-organized Args list. Every sentence carries essential information for correct invocation, and the length is justified by the complexity of the conversation object structure. No fluff or redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (nested conversation objects, multiple optional fields, integration with monitors, validation semantics) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, use cases, parameter details, validation behavior, and tag/mut_id matching. It leaves no significant ambiguity for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates with a detailed Args section. It explains the conversations array's required fields (call_id, at least one of transcript/audio/recording_url/recording_bytes_b64), optional fields, and the exact semantics of project_id and mut_id, including the default and tagging behavior. This is exemplary compensation for missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+purpose: 'Submit completed voice conversations to Okareo for monitoring.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like run_simulation and run_test by focusing on production voice traffic ingestion. The scope is unambiguous.

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 explicit context: 'Use this to feed production voice traffic (Retell, Twilio, VAPI, ElevenLabs, or a custom source) into Okareo monitoring.' It also clarifies behavior like per-conversation validation and mut_id omission for pure monitoring. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/okareo-ai/okareo-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server