Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
codex-intercom-mcp

codex-intercom-mcp

by ctliz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

intercom_join

Create or join a task team after approval; add connected peers as manager, or omit the team name to list joinable teams.

Instructions

After user approval, create or join a task team. Membership is additive; members lets the manager add connected peers in one call. Omit name to list teams.

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": "intercom_join"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoTeam name to join. Omit to list joinable teams.
workNoTask description when creating a team.
createNoCreate this named team and join as manager. Requires name.
membersNoConnected session names or IDs to add; manager only.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.13.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / members
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Connected session names or IDs to add; manager only.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / work
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Task description when creating a team.",
+  "maxLength": 2000,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv0.12.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation. The description adds context annotations cannot: an approval gate before invocation, that membership grows additively rather than replacing, and that member addition is manager-only. It does not describe what happens on conflicts or the shape of the response, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the approval prerequisite and the core action, with no filler. The telegraphic phrasing ('members lets the manager add connected peers') is dense but still parseable.

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 zero-required-parameter tool with three distinct modes, the description covers the modes and the approval gate but leaves the relationship to intercom_team unexplained and says nothing about what listing or joining returns, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 every parameter is already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only marginal meaning, notably that 'members' refers to connected peers addable in one call, while 'omit name to list teams' merely restates the schema's own note.

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 clear compound verb plus resource ('create or join a task team') and adds a third mode ('omit name to list teams'), so an agent can tell what the call does. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling intercom_team, which by name appears to cover overlapping team functionality, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

It gives one real prerequisite ('after user approval') and a mode-selection rule ('omit name to list teams'), which is more than nothing. But it never says when to use this instead of intercom_team or the other siblings, and the create-vs-join decision is only implied through parameter behavior.

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