CallRail MCP

by pghdma

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

update_call

Update an existing call: notes, tags, spam flag, customer name, lead status.

Instructions

Update an existing call: notes, tags, spam flag, customer name, lead status.

Args: call_id: 'CAL...' id of the call to update. account_id: Auto-resolves if omitted. note: Replace the call's note text. tags: REPLACE the call's tag list with this set of tag names. (Use add_call_tags/remove_call_tags for additive changes.) spam: True to mark as spam, False to unmark. Note: spam-flagged calls are HIDDEN from default GET endpoints; re-reads will 404. Tag the call BEFORE flagging spam if you need both. customer_name: Override the auto-detected caller name. lead_status: e.g. 'good_lead', 'not_a_lead', 'unknown'.

Note: value is intentionally NOT exposed here. CallRail's API returns a 500 server error when value is included in the PUT body to /calls (verified via live testing 2026-04-24). It IS supported on form submissions. See update_form_submission.

Empty-string fields (e.g. note="") are rejected because CallRail interprets them as "clear this field", which is almost always a mistake. To intentionally clear a field, set it to None and use a separate UI operation, or contact CallRail support.

Length caps (rejected pre-network): - note: 4000 chars - customer_name: 200 chars - tags: 100 entries max

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`spam`	No
`tags`	No
`call_id`	Yes
`account_id`	No
`lead_status`	No
`customer_name`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description extensively discloses hidden behaviors: spam-flagged calls are hidden from GET endpoints (causing 404s), `value` causes a 500 error, and empty-string fields are rejected. This is rich behavioral context that the agent needs to avoid failures, though it doesn't cover all potential edge cases (e.g., response specifics).

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 detailed but well-organized with clear sections (Args, Note, Length caps). It front-loads the core purpose and then provides necessary caveats. Some redundancy exists (e.g., empty-string rule is stated twice), but overall it's efficient given the complexity.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description covers all critical aspects: field semantics, behavioral traps, length caps, and alternatives. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed here. The agent has everything to call this 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries all parameter meaning. It explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., `tags` replace the full tag list, `spam` toggles flagging) and adds crucial caveats like the `note` field's 4000-char limit and the `customer_name` 200-char cap. This fully compensates for the 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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing call'), and enumerates the exact fields it can modify: notes, tags, spam flag, customer name, lead status. This differentiates it from siblings like `bulk_update_calls` (batch) or `add_call_tags`/`remove_call_tags` (additive tag changes).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says to use `add_call_tags`/`remove_call_tags` for additive tag changes, and warns against using `value` (pointing to `update_form_submission`). It also provides behavior guidelines like tagging before flagging spam and avoiding empty-string clears, giving clear when/to/not-to context.

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

Deploy Server