claude-intercom-mcp

by dataforxyz

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.9.2
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: asking questions, listing sessions, checking pending messages, replying, sending DMs, setting summaries, checking status, and identifying oneself. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools share the 'intercom_' prefix with descriptive verbs or nouns. While some use plain verbs (ask, list, reply, send) and others use state nouns (pending, status, whoami) or verb_noun (set_summary), the pattern is predictable and clear.
Tool Count5/5
8 tools is ideal for the domain of inter-session communication. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy, covering sending, receiving, discovery, and status.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers all essential operations for inter-session messaging: sending (both blocking and non-blocking), reading, replying, discovering sessions, displaying status, and self-identification. No obvious gaps like broadcast or notification are needed for basic communication.
Average 3.4/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 44 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 16, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under AGPL 3.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Mentions 'non-blocking' which hints at asynchronous behavior, but no details on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or success/failure signaling.
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?
Single sentence of 15 words, efficient and front-loaded with verb and resource. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. Missing return value, error conditions, authentication requirements, and details on attachments subtype specifications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are missing (coverage 0%). The tool description adds context for 'to' parameter (by name, full ID, or prefix) but no elaboration on 'message' or 'attachments' structure, required fields, or allowed values.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Send' and resource 'direct message to another intercom session' with methods to identify recipient. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like intercom_reply, which could be for replying. The 'non-blocking' qualifier adds clarity but is not explained further.
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?
Only implies when to use (sending a direct message). No guidance on when not to use, prerequisites, or alternatives among siblings (e.g., intercom_reply for replies).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only states 'list', suggesting read-only, but fails to disclose other traits like whether there are side effects, the meaning of 'intercom-connected', or what happens on no results.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. However, it omits parameter information, which would improve completeness without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It fails to explain what Intercom is, what a 'session' entails, the effect of parameters, or the return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has two parameters (scope, include_self) with 0% description coverage, but the tool description does not mention any parameter details, leaving the agent uninformed about how to use them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('intercom-connected Pi or Claude sessions') with a scope ('on this machine'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that perform actions like ask, send, reply, etc.
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 context (listing sessions on this machine) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that the 'mark_read' parameter can change state (mark messages as read), nor does it explain the scope ('for this Claude session' is mentioned but without details on session boundaries or side effects).
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 sentence with no redundant words. Every part adds value, achieving maximum conciseness for the intended purpose.
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?
Given the simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose but lacks detail on the parameter's behavior and any side effects. It is minimally viable but could be more helpful with additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter 'mark_read' has no description in the schema. The tool description also omits any explanation of this parameter, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the name alone. This is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Read' and specifies the resources: 'unread inbound messages and unresolved asks'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like intercom_ask (send an ask), intercom_reply (reply), intercom_send (send), etc., by focusing on reading pending items.
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 when needing to retrieve unread messages and unresolved asks, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it (e.g., for listing all messages) or compare with alternatives like intercom_list or intercom_status. Guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'reply to a pending inbound ask' without detailing behavior like whether it creates a new message, modifies the ask, or requires specific permissions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is very short with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. It is concise, but could benefit from slightly more detail without excessive length.
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?
Given no output schema and a simple action, the description is somewhat complete for the core purpose but lacks context on the outcome of replying (e.g., whether it sends immediately, thread behavior). It does not address error cases or prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description only hints that 'to' and 'reply_to' can be omitted under a condition, but does not explain their meaning or format. For a tool with three parameters, this is inadequate.
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 clearly states it replies to a pending inbound ask, which conveys the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like intercom_ask (asking) and intercom_send (sending messages) by specifying 'reply' to a pending ask, but could further clarify what constitutes an 'ask'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a useful guideline: when exactly one ask is pending, 'to' and 'reply_to' can be omitted. This helps the agent decide how to use the tool efficiently. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions waiting for a reply but does not explain potential outcomes like timeout errors, blocking behavior, or the format of replies. The timeout_ms parameter hints at timeouts, but this is not in the description itself.
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 sentence that directly states the tool's function without extraneous words. It is efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, input requirements, or error behaviors, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only timeout_ms has a description). The tool description adds no meaning to parameters: 'to' and 'message' are unexplained, and attachments structure is not clarified. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: asking another intercom session a question and waiting for a reply. It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like intercom_send (send without waiting) and intercom_reply (reply to a question).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies synchronous use by mentioning 'wait for its reply'. The timeout_ms parameter description provides guidance to use intercom_send plus intercom_pending for longer work, offering limited usage guidance. However, the main description lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. The verb 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it does not modify state. The absence of any mention of side effects or permissions leaves room for ambiguity.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and lists the outputs. Every word adds value, no redundancy.
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 tool without output schema, the description covers the main information: what the tool returns. It lacks details like whether the status is real-time or requires a connection, but for a simple status check, it is sufficient.
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?
The tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds meaning by stating what data is shown, which is helpful but not essential since there are no parameters to clarify.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Show' and lists the exact resources: connection status, active sessions, unread messages, and pending asks. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'intercom_ask' or 'intercom_send'.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for preferring it over other intercom tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It indicates a write operation ('publish') and the purpose, but does not mention whether it overwrites previous summaries or any authentication needs. The transparency is adequate for a simple set action.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. The action and purpose are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's function and rationale. However, it could mention that the summary overwrites any previous summary for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must elaborate on the 'summary' parameter. However, it only refers to 'short status summary' without adding constraints (e.g., maxLength 400 is in schema but not described), conventions, or examples. This provides minimal added value beyond the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'publish' and the resource 'status summary', and explains the purpose: enabling other sessions to discover what this session is doing. This distinguishes it effectively from siblings like intercom_status (read status) or intercom_list (list items).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (to share current activity with other sessions) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The context from sibling tools helps, but direct exclusion criteria are missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, auth needs, or side effects. For a whoami tool, it is likely safe, but this is not stated.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficient. It states what it returns and hints at its purpose.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description does not need to add parameter details; baseline is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Verb 'Return' and resource 'intercom identity' are specific. Context 'this Claude session' clarifies scope. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that involve asking, listing, replying, sending, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for reliable targeting' indicates when to use it (to obtain identity for targeting). While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the purpose is self-evident given sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![agent-intercom-claude MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dataforxyz/agent-intercom-claude/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dataforxyz/agent-intercom-claude)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![agent-intercom-claude MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dataforxyz/agent-intercom-claude/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dataforxyz/agent-intercom-claude)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dataforxyz/agent-intercom-claude'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server