Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Argorant

by com.argorant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Change the label on a reply

argorant_inbox_classify

Set the label of one conversation, such as positive (shown as Interested), meeting_request, out_of_office, unsubscribe or neutral (shown as Other). Use it when the user wants a reply filed differently; the keys come from argorant_reply_statuses, and a new label is made with argorant_create_reply_status. It replaces the conversation's label and sends nothing. 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": {
      "event_id": "<event_id>",
      "classification": "<classification>"
    },
    "name": "argorant_inbox_classify"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
event_idYesThe conversation's event_id, from argorant_inbox.
classificationYesA key from argorant_reply_statuses, e.g. positive, meeting_request, neutral, pricing_question

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by stating 'It replaces the conversation's label and sends nothing,' which tells the agent the effect is a silent overwrite rather than an email reply. It does not mention permissions, error cases, or whether a prior label is recoverable, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and label vocabulary, then the trigger, then the side-effect caveat. It is slightly padded by the enumerated label list with display names and a trailing docs URL, but every sentence carries information.

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?

For a two-parameter labeling mutation with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, where the valid values come from, and that it sends nothing. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters carry their own descriptions (event_id from argorant_inbox, classification from argorant_reply_statuses). The only added meaning is the human-readable display mapping ('positive shown as Interested', 'neutral shown as Other'), which is useful but marginal, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource -- 'Set the label of one conversation' -- and enumerates the label values (positive/Interested, meeting_request, out_of_office, unsubscribe, neutral/Other), which distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like argorant_reply_statuses (lists keys) and argorant_update_reply_status (edits the status definitions themselves).

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user wants a reply filed differently') and names two prerequisite alternatives: keys come from argorant_reply_statuses, and a missing label must first be created with argorant_create_reply_status. Nothing about when to choose this over those siblings is left to inference.

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