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

codex-intercom-mcp

by ctliz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

intercom_send

Sends a non-blocking direct message to another intercom session by name, full ID, or unique ID prefix so local coding agents can coordinate without interrupting their work.

Instructions

Send a non-blocking direct message to another intercom session by name, full ID, or unique ID prefix.

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": {
      "to": "<to>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "intercom_send"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYes
teamNoTask team; required when multiple teams are shared. Omit for ungrouped contact.
messageYes
attachmentsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.13.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / team
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Task team; required when multiple teams are shared. Omit for ungrouped contact.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.11.0-connect.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write, and the description usefully adds the "non-blocking" delivery trait that annotations cannot express. It does not say what happens if the recipient is ambiguous or unmatched, nor whether a delivery confirmation or message ID is returned.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the recipient-addressing detail is placed where it is immediately useful. It is efficient but borderline terse for a tool with a nested attachments parameter.

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 4-parameter write tool with a nested attachment object, no output schema, and sibling tools that overlap in intent, the description covers only addressing and non-blocking behavior. Attachment format and expected response are left entirely to the schema and convention.

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 only 25%, with just the `team` field documented, so the description carries real weight by explaining that `to` accepts a name, full ID, or unique ID prefix — meaning the schema alone does not provide. However, `message` and the nested `attachments` structure remain unexplained in both places.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Send a ... direct message to another intercom session") plus the addressing modes accepted by the recipient field. It is clearly not intercom_list or intercom_status, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with intercom_ask or intercom_reply, which are the closest siblings.

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?

"Non-blocking" implies a usage distinction from a blocking ask-style call, but the description never names intercom_ask or intercom_reply or states the condition that selects one over the other. The agent must infer when to send versus ask or reply.

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