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

codex-intercom-mcp

by ctliz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

intercom_reply

Reply to an inbound ask or ordinary message by askId or contextId; the original team is inherited automatically and cannot be overridden.

Instructions

Reply to an inbound ask or ordinary message using askId or contextId from intercom_pending. Inherits the original team; team cannot override it.

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": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "intercom_reply"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoOptional sender/session selector; never a message or thread ID.
teamNoMust match the original message; omit to inherit.
askIdNoStable receiver-local pending ask selector.
whichNoSelect the oldest or latest ask from the chosen sender.
messageYes
contextIdNoExact inbound context selector, including ordinary messages.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.13.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / askId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Stable receiver-local pending ask selector.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / contextId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Exact inbound context selector, including ordinary messages.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / team
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Must match the original message; omit to inherit.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.11.0-connect.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the reply inherits the original team and team cannot be overridden, which warns the agent that a supplied team value will not take effect. It stops short of describing delivery/confirmation behavior, but that is a minor gap against existing annotation coverage.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core action plus selector source are front-loaded ahead of the team constraint. Every clause carries operational information.

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?

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential routing (where selectors come from) and the key constraint (team inheritance). It leaves the 'which'/'to' selector logic and any result confirmation entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but not fully rounded out.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already explains each selector. The description adds only the provenance hint that askId/contextId come from intercom_pending and reinforces the team-inheritance rule; it says nothing about 'which' or 'to' beyond what the schema documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Reply to an inbound ask or ordinary message") and names the exact selectors (askId or contextId) plus their source tool, intercom_pending. It implicitly separates itself from intercom_send by framing the operation as a reply to an inbound item, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 useful provenance guidance — get askId/contextId from intercom_pending — which tells the agent the prerequisite step. However, it never states when to prefer intercom_reply over intercom_send, nor which of askId/contextId/which/to to choose in a given situation, leaving selector choice to the schema.

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