Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gapify-mcp-server

gapify-mcp-server

by mh-zeynal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Inboxes: Add a New Agent

gapify_add_inbox_agents

Add agents to an inbox by providing the account ID, inbox ID, and user IDs; use for assigning support users to Gapify inboxes.

Instructions

Add agents to an inbox [Inboxes] POST /api/v1/accounts/{account_id}/inbox_members Auth: User API key (header api-access-token). Body fields: inbox_id (required), user_ids (required). Extra fields can be passed via extra_body. Text values may be written in Persian (Farsi) or any other language and are sent unchanged; IDs, numbers and phone numbers may use Persian or Arabic-Indic digits.

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": {
      "account_id": "<account_id>",
      "inbox_id": "<inbox_id>",
      "user_ids": "<user_ids>"
    },
    "name": "gapify_add_inbox_agents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inbox_idYesThe ID of the inbox
user_idsYesIDs of users to be added to the inbox Example: [1]
account_idYesThe numeric ID of the account
extra_bodyNoAdditional JSON body fields to merge into the request (for keys not listed above).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes beyond the annotations (which only declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent) by disclosing the required auth mechanism (User API key via `api-access-token` header), the underlying endpoint, and that values are transmitted unchanged including Persian/Arabic-Indic digits. It does not state what happens to existing members or how failures are surfaced, but it adds real context the annotations do not.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then layers endpoint, auth and body details compactly with no filler sentences. The bracketed '[Inboxes]' tag and the language note are slightly redundant but not wasteful.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies endpoint, auth and body requirements, which is close to sufficient. It still omits the add-vs-replace semantics relative to gapify_update_inbox_agents and any error/edge behavior, leaving a gap an agent could get wrong.

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 description coverage is 100%, so inbox_id, user_ids, account_id and extra_body are already documented; the description largely restates the required body fields. The one genuine addition is the note that text/ID values may be written in Persian or Arabic-Indic digits and are sent unchanged, which is a small semantic gain over the schema.

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+resource ('Add agents to an inbox') and even names the endpoint POST /inbox_members, so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like gapify_update_inbox_agents (which also mutates inbox membership) or gapify_remove_inbox_agent.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent must infer that this is for adding members while gapify_update_inbox_agents replaces the membership set and gapify_remove_inbox_agent removes members; the description never says so, leaving the add-vs-update choice to guesswork.

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