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

codex-intercom-mcp

by ctliz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

intercom_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check intercom connection status, active sessions, unread messages, and pending asks to monitor communication with local coding agents.

Instructions

Show intercom connection status, active sessions, unread messages, and pending asks.

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_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.11.0-connect.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. Beyond those annotations, the description usefully discloses the categories of information returned, including unread messages and pending asks, which helps the agent understand the result even without an output schema.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every listed item contributes to explaining what status information the tool exposes.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough coverage by listing the returned categories. Minor details such as freshness or response formatting are missing but are not critical for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

This tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain inputs, and its focus on returned status categories is appropriate.

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, 'Show,' and names the status resources it returns: connection status, active sessions, unread messages, and pending asks. It is clearer than a generic status tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as intercom_pending or intercom_list.

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?

The description implies usage as a status-check tool by stating what information is shown, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not tell the agent when to prefer intercom_pending, intercom_list, or other siblings.

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