Skip to main content
Glama

Set the status of a conversation

set_conversation_status

Says where a thread stands, and optionally where it stands in the pipeline. Both are recorded as decided by a person, so a later reading by Iris keeps them. To set the same status on several threads, 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
statusYesWhere the thread stands: "open" for one nobody has taken, "customer_reply" when the contact has written back, "answered" once we replied, "delivery_failed" when our reply bounced, "in_progress" while someone works on it, "closed" when it is over.
deal_stageNoWhere the thread stands in the pipeline, in your own vocabulary, up to 128 characters. An empty string clears it.
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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it explains that statuses are recorded as human decisions, describes bulk behavior, per-thread results, and partial-failure semantics. It still omits permission requirements, reversibility, and effects of status transitions, leaving some operational gaps.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the bulk-call details are relevant and useful. The long third sentence is dense and somewhat convoluted, but it does not contain obvious 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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description explains bulk return shape, per-thread outcomes, and when the whole call errors. It is nearly complete, though it does not cover single-thread return behavior or permission/trigger side effects.

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 the input schema already documents all three parameters and the status enum in detail. The description reinforces bulk usage for conversation_id but adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action and resource: setting where a conversation thread stands, with an optional pipeline stage. It is clear enough to distinguish from assignment, renaming, or read-state tools by the status concept, but it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear operational context for setting status and explicitly explains how to handle multiple threads in one call rather than repeatedly. It does not include exclusions or comparisons to alternatives, so it falls short of the highest level.

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