Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
I-Bot MCP

I-Bot MCP

Official
by SistemaIntegra
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

ibot_get_message_status

Check the delivery status of a message sent through I-Bot by providing its message ID, optionally with the phone ID to query a specific number.

Instructions

Consulta o status de entrega de uma mensagem enviada pelo I-Bot.

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": {
      "message_id": "<message_id>"
    },
    "name": "ibot_get_message_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
phone_idNoPhone ID do número a consultar. Padrão: o primeiro número. Configurados: 67890
message_idYesID da mensagem

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. "Consulta" implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about permissions, rate limits, error behavior, or what statuses are returned. For a returning-status query tool this is thin.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler. It is well front-loaded, though it is arguably too terse given the gaps elsewhere.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple query with 100% schema coverage and a required message_id, the definition is minimally viable. However, with no output schema it could explain what delivery statuses mean, and it omits where the message_id originates.

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%, so message_id and phone_id are already documented in the schema, including the phone_id default note. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ("Consulta") and resource ("status de entrega de uma mensagem") for the I-Bot message-status tool. It is clearly distinct from siblings like ibot_get_chat_status, though it does not explicitly name an alternative to disambiguate.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

It states what the tool does but gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites (e.g. where message_id comes from), and no mention of alternatives. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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