Skip to main content
Glama

Say who is handling a thread

assign_conversation

Puts a colleague's name on a thread of a helpdesk queue: what says, to everyone working that queue, that this one is being dealt with and by whom. It hands over the WORK and not the access, so the thread stays readable by the whole team and nobody loses sight of it. Somebody who does not work that queue is refused rather than named on a thread they cannot open, and so is a deactivated account: put them on the queue first with add_queue_operator. Threads of a mailbox are refused too, a box being held rather than assigned. Name "team" instead of "person" to hand it to a team (list_teams names them): every member who works the queue sees it as theirs to take until one of them does, and a team none of whose members works the queue is refused. unassign_conversation gives the thread back to the queue. To hand several threads to the same colleague or team, give conversation_id the list of their ids, in ONE call rather than one call per thread: the answer then lists in "results" the outcome of each thread in the order given ("ok", with its "result" or its "error") and counts "succeeded" and "failed". Each thread passes exactly the checks it would alone, so one refused or out of reach ("not found") leaves the others done, and the call is an error only when none succeeded.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
teamNoThe slug of a team of the account, as list_teams gives it, in place of "person".
personNoThe email address the person signs in with, which is not the same thing as the mailbox: it is how the account knows them.
conversation_idYesThe id of the conversation, as list_conversations gives it, or a list of up to 50 ids to do the same to every one of them in a single call.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so: it states that the transfer is of work rather than access, that the thread remains readable by the whole team, which subjects are refused and why, and exactly how bulk calls behave (per-thread results, succeeded/failed counts, partial success, error only when all fail). That is far beyond what any structured field conveys.

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?

Purpose and the work-not-access distinction are front-loaded, and every paragraph covers distinct ground (preconditions, exclusions, team semantics, bulk semantics). It is dense and slightly run-on, with a few rhetorical clauses that could be trimmed, but nothing is filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the refusal conditions and bulk response shape are covered well. The return value of the single-id form is not described, which is the one remaining gap an agent might want before formatting its answer.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: that 'team' is used in place of 'person' and taken from list_teams, the 50-id cap's purpose as a single-call replacement for looping, and that one bad id does not abort the rest.

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?

A specific verb (assign) plus resource (conversation/thread) with an explicit scope limitation: it works on helpdesk queue threads, not mailbox threads. It also distinguishes the assignment (work, not access) from unassign_conversation and add_queue_operator by name, so the agent can place it among its siblings 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 preconditions are stated (the assignee must already work the queue or be added with add_queue_operator; teams need at least one operating member), explicit exclusions are stated (deactivated accounts, mailbox threads, teams with no queue members), and the alternative for reverting is named (unassign_conversation). It also tells the agent when to use the list form of conversation_id instead of looping.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources