Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lightbulb-mcp

lightbulb-mcp

by RPasquale
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

customer_success_chat

Destructive

Chat with a customer success agent to resolve tasks or achieve objectives. Provide a free-text message and optional structured inputs to get targeted actions.

Instructions

Run the customer_success domain agent action chat.

Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope.

Args: message: Free-text objective for the action. inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "customer_success_chat"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputsNo{}
messageNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate destructive and non-idempotent behavior, but the description adds no detail about side effects, permissions, or consequences. It only mentions routing through a dispatcher, which is technical but not informative about behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief but not concise: it repeats the tool name and action, and the routing sentence adds little value. A clearer structure would state the purpose, expected input, and output in a few direct sentences.

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

Completeness1/5

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

The tool lacks essential context: what the customer_success domain agent does, what the chat action returns, and how it fits into broader workflows. The output schema is marked as present but not shown, further reducing completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The parameters 'message' and 'inputs' have no descriptions or examples. The schema coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not explain their meaning or expected format. An agent cannot infer what to pass in these fields.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description only states that it runs the 'chat' action for the customer_success domain, without explaining what the action does (e.g., send a message, get a response, or perform a task). It is vague and does not distinguish it from the many other domain-specific chat tools in the sibling list.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other chat or domain-specific tools. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or examples that would help an agent decide to invoke it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools