Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Argorant

by com.argorant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Add a reply label

argorant_create_reply_status

Create one of the workspace's own reply labels, such as Pricing question or Proposal sent, with a one-line description of when a reply fits. This is what a user means by creating a new classification. Use it only for a label argorant_reply_statuses does not list yet; to rename, recolour or hide a label use argorant_update_reply_status. It changes no reply and sends nothing. Returns the new label's key for argorant_inbox_classify. More in the docs at https://docs.argorant.com/docs/agents/tools#inbox

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": {
      "label": "<label>"
    },
    "name": "argorant_create_reply_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
colorNoOne of lime, blue, purple, yellow, rose or neutral (default blue).blue
labelYesThe label's name as people see it, for example Pricing question.
descriptionNoWhen a reply fits this label, in one line

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value: "It changes no reply and sends nothing" scopes the side effect to label creation only, and it names the follow-up consumer of the returned key. It does not discuss validation failures, duplicate-label handling, or limits, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Four short sentences, each load-bearing: purpose with examples, selection rule, side-effect scope, and return value. The disambiguating constraints are front-loaded before the alternative-tool pointer, and the docs link is placed last where it belongs.

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?

The tool is a simple three-parameter creator with an output schema, and the description covers what an agent needs: what it creates, when to pick it, what it does not touch, and what the return is for. Nothing material is missing given the structured data already supplied.

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 100%, so color choices, label length, and the description field are already fully documented. The description reinforces intent (a one-line statement of when a reply fits) and gives a sample label value, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Create ... reply labels"), concrete examples ("Pricing question or Proposal sent"), and explicitly frames it as the tool a user means by "creating a new classification." It is clearly distinguishable from argorant_update_reply_status and argorant_reply_statuses, which it names directly.

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?

States the positive case ("Use it only for a label argorant_reply_statuses does not list yet") and the negative case with the correct alternative ("to rename, recolour or hide a label use argorant_update_reply_status"). An agent has no inference left to make about tool selection.

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

All Argorant toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources