Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Argorant

by com.argorant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Change a reply label

argorant_update_reply_status
Idempotent

Change one reply label. The workspace's own labels can get a new name, colour or description and keep their key; standard and optional labels can only be hidden (visible=false) or shown again. Use it to rename or hide a label. To remove one of the workspace's own labels for good use argorant_delete_reply_status, and to label a conversation use argorant_inbox_classify. Only the fields you pass change. It is free. 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": {
      "key": "<key>"
    },
    "name": "argorant_update_reply_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesThe label's key, from argorant_reply_statuses.
colorNoOne of lime, blue, purple, yellow, rose or neutral.
labelNoThe label's name as people see it, for example Pricing question.
visibleNofalse hides the label, true shows it again.
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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds real semantics on top: partial-update behaviour ("Only the fields you pass change"), the constraint that standard/optional labels can only be toggled visible, that renamed workspace labels keep their key, and that the call is free. It stops short of noting permission requirements or what happens on an invalid request (e.g. trying to rename a standard label), which is why it is a 4 rather than 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 core action in the first sentence, then the label-class restriction, then sibling routing, then the partial-update and cost notes. Every sentence carries information, though the middle sibling-routing sentence is tightly packed with two alternatives and a docs link, making it slightly dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a 5-parameter idempotent mutation, the description supplies the missing pieces: which labels can be edited vs only hidden, partial-update semantics, key preservation on rename, cost, and routes to both the delete and the classify siblings. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is absent.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns the extra point by stating the partial-update contract that the schema does not express, and by clarifying that "change" on a standard label is really a visible=false/true toggle. It adds no further detail on key format or allowed colour values, which the schema already carries.

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?

"Change one reply label" gives a specific verb and resource, then immediately explains what 'change' means for each label class (rename/recolour/re-describe workspace labels; hide or show standard and optional ones). It names the two nearest siblings, argorant_delete_reply_status and argorant_inbox_classify, so the agent can tell this tool apart without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ("rename or hide a label") plus explicit when-not-to-use, with the alternative named for each case: permanent removal goes to argorant_delete_reply_status, applying a label to a conversation goes to argorant_inbox_classify. It also states the per-label-type restriction, so the agent knows a rename will not work on standard labels.

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