supovia

Show Supovia support overview

show_support_overview

Read-onlyIdempotent

Render a bounded organization-scoped snapshot of Supovia websites and recent conversations. Customer identifiers, internal record ids, message bodies, prompts, credentials, internal notes, organization ids, and arbitrary metadata are excluded.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`websiteId`	No	Optionally limit the overview to one organization-owned website

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`websites`	Yes
`conversations`	Yes
`websitesHaveMore`	Yes
`conversationsHaveMore`	Yes
`openConversationCount`	Yes

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds valuable context by disclosing that the output excludes sensitive identifiers, internal notes, and credentials, which is beyond annotation coverage.

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 description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists exclusions. It is efficient and well-structured, though it could benefit from a break into two sentences for readability.

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?

The output schema covers return format, and annotations cover safety. The description provides scoping and exclusion details, making it complete for an overview tool. The term 'recent' is somewhat vague but acceptable in this context.

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?

The schema fully documents the only parameter (websiteId) with a clear description, so the description adds no extra semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool renders a bounded organization-scoped snapshot of websites and recent conversations, which is distinct from sibling list tools like list_websites or list_conversations. It also enumerates what is excluded, adding precision beyond the tool name.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies this is for a high-level overview, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings or mention exclusions. No when-not-to-use guidance is given, leaving selection partly to inference.

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?