Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
warp-mcp

warp-mcp

by Ringer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Nudge connectivity partner

msg_nudge_cnp

Prompt the elected Connectivity Partner to re-review a campaign stuck in review. Use when a pending CNP review lasts too long, triggering a fresh review attempt with a 202 Accepted response.

Instructions

Prompt the elected Connectivity Partner to re-review a campaign that is stuck in review. Use when msg_get_sharing_status shows a pending CNP review for too long. Returns 202 Accepted with no body. Errors: NOT_FOUND (404), TNIQ_ERROR (502).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesCampaign ID (messaging-backend UUID, as returned by msg_list_campaigns / msg_create_campaign)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide no hints (readOnly=false, destructive=false), but description adds non-idempotent nature (prompt), response format (202 Accepted, no body), and error codes (404, 502). 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 sentences: purpose and usage condition, followed by return/error info. No wasted words, front-loaded with key action.

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?

For a single-parameter mutation with no output schema, description covers what, when, response, and errors. No gaps given tool complexity.

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% with detailed parameter description. Description does not add new semantic value beyond the schema's 'Campaign ID' and context of origin. Baseline score applies.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Prompt' and the resource 'elected Connectivity Partner' to re-review a campaign. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing msg_get_sharing_status for pending review.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when msg_get_sharing_status shows a pending CNP review for too long,' providing a clear condition. No explicit alternatives mentioned but condition is sufficient.

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