supovia

Get unresolved conversation counts

get_unresolved_conversation_counts

Read-onlyIdempotent

Count every unresolved conversation in the authenticated Supovia organization, grouped by website. Totals cover all returned count groups; the sorted per-website preview is capped at 100 and reports truncation. Customer identifiers, staff ids, message text, and organization ids are never returned.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`websites`	Yes
`totalClamped`	Yes
`websiteCount`	Yes
`totalUnresolved`	Yes
`websitesTruncated`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the per-website preview is capped at 100 and reports truncation, and sensitive identifiers are never returned. This is useful beyond annotations and has no contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the primary action and follow with essential behavioral details. Every sentence carries information, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description fully explains the key behaviors an agent needs: what is counted, how grouping works, the preview cap, truncation reporting, and privacy guarantees. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers everything (100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameters; a baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameter-less tools.

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 states a specific verb ('Count'), a precise resource ('unresolved conversation'), and a grouping dimension ('by website') within an authenticated organization. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_conversations (which lists conversations) and get_conversation (which retrieves a single one).

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?

The context is clear: it counts unresolved conversations grouped by website, which implies its use when aggregate numbers are needed rather than individual conversation details. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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

All supovia tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action: retrieving single resources (get_conversation, get_document, get_website), listing sets (list_*), searching (search_documents), mutating state (resolve_conversation, send_message), and rendering views (show_customer_inbox, show_support_overview). Even the two inbox-related tools are clearly separated: one opens and counts, the other refreshes a specific conversation. No two tools could be easily confused.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with clear verbs: get, list, search, open, resolve, send, show. The naming is uniform across the set, with no mixed conventions (e.g., camelCase or vague verbs like 'process'). The pattern makes it predictable for an agent to infer tool purposes.

Tool Count5/5

With 14 tools, the server is well-scoped for a customer support/support-documentation domain. Each tool covers a distinct responsibility without redundancy, and the count is within the ideal 3–15 range. There is no bloat or triviality.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core workflows: listing and retrieving conversations, resolving or sending messages, reading and searching documents, and listing websites/campaigns. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no document update/delete, no campaign creation/send), but these appear intentionally read-only for safety and the main support operations are well covered.

Resources

Need Help?