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

gapify-mcp-server

by mh-zeynal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Inbox API: Inbox details

gapify_client_get_inbox
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve detailed information for a specific inbox using its identifier, so you can view channel configuration and settings from the Gapify customer-support API.

Instructions

Get the details of an inbox [Inbox API] GET /public/api/v1/inboxes/{inbox_identifier} 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": {
      "inbox_identifier": "<inbox_identifier>"
    },
    "name": "gapify_client_get_inbox"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inbox_identifierYesThe identifier obtained from API inbox channel

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds real value beyond that with the endpoint path (confirming a single-resource fetch) and the note that Persian/Arabic-Indic digits may appear in IDs and numbers unchanged, which is useful for input normalization. It still says nothing about response content or error behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the endpoint and a compact encoding note. It is appropriately short and every sentence carries some information, though the Persian/Arabic-Indic digit note reads as boilerplate and slightly dilutes focus.

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?

With no output schema, the description remains the only source for return-shape information, and it never says what "details" an inbox returns. For a single-parameter read tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile, this is adequate but leaves a real gap around what the caller receives.

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% for the single inbox_identifier parameter, so the baseline is 3. The endpoint path in the description implicitly confirms it is a path parameter, but no additional syntax, format, or sourcing guidance is provided beyond what the schema already states.

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+resource ("Get the details of an inbox") and even pins the underlying endpoint, so the operation is unambiguous. However, the sibling list contains gapify_get_inbox as well as gapify_list_inboxes, gapify_create_inbox, and gapify_update_inbox, and nothing in the description distinguishes this "client" variant from the platform-side get. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no named alternative. The description does not tell an agent when to prefer gapify_client_get_inbox over gapify_get_inbox or gapify_list_inboxes, which is exactly the ambiguity a sibling-heavy toolset creates.

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