Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Teppek

by com.teppek.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

reply_to_conversation

Continue an EXISTING message thread by thread_id — the message goes to the other participant. Use this to follow up in a conversation that already exists, whether the user is the listing owner answering an inquiry or the inquirer following up. For the FIRST message to a listing found in search (you have a listing_id but no thread yet), use send_message instead. Contact routes through Teppek; raw personal details are never exposed. Find thread_id via list_conversations / get_conversation.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesThe reply to post into the conversation, up to 2000 characters. Contact routes through Teppek; raw personal details are never exposed. Example: "That time works for me."
thread_idYesConversation id (a UUID), taken from list_conversations. Example: "3f6c2a1e-8b4d-4c7a-9e21-5d0f7a6b1c34".

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / body / description
      Previous value: -"The reply to post into the conversation. Contact routes through Teppek; raw personal details are never exposed."New value: +"The reply to post into the conversation, up to 2000 characters. Contact routes through Teppek; raw personal details are never exposed. Example: \"That time works for me.\""
    • addedInput schema / properties / thread_id / description
      Added value: +"Conversation id (a UUID), taken from list_conversations. Example: \"3f6c2a1e-8b4d-4c7a-9e21-5d0f7a6b1c34\"."
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {},
+  "type": "object"
+}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the write/non-idempotent profile is known. The description adds genuinely new context: the message is delivered to the counterparty and contact is proxied through Teppek with no raw personal details exposed. It does not address failure modes (invalid, closed, or someone else's thread_id) or any rate limits, which is the main gap.

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 action and scope, then the alternative, then the trust note, then the id lookup — a sensible ordering with no wasted preamble. The 'Contact routes through Teppek; raw personal details are never exposed' sentence partly duplicates the body parameter description, a minor redundancy.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies the decision rule against the nearest sibling and how to obtain the required thread_id. Only error/closed-thread behavior is left unstated, which is not strictly necessary to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented with examples and length bounds, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the thread_id provenance (list_conversations / get_conversation) but adds no format or constraint detail the schema does not already carry.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Continue an EXISTING message thread by thread_id') plus the observable effect ('the message goes to the other participant'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling send_message and from read-only siblings like get_conversation.

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?

Explicitly names both roles that should use it (listing owner answering, inquirer following up) and gives a concrete exclusion: for the first message to a listing found in search with a listing_id but no thread, use send_message instead. It also routes the agent to list_conversations / get_conversation to obtain thread_id.

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

All Teppek 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