Skip to main content
Glama
mh-zeynal

gapify-mcp-server

by mh-zeynal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Conversations: Create New Conversation

gapify_create_conversation

Create a conversation for a contact in an inbox using required source and inbox IDs, with optional initial message, assignee, team, and status.

Instructions

Create a conversation for a contact in an inbox. Requires the contact inbox source_id (see gapify_create_contact_inbox) [Conversations] POST /api/v1/accounts/{account_id}/conversations Auth: User API key or Agent bot API key (header api-access-token). Body fields: source_id (required), inbox_id (required), contact_id, additional_attributes, custom_attributes, status, assignee_id, team_id, message. 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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoInitial status of the conversation. One of: `open`, `resolved`, `pending`. Example: "open"
messageNoThe initial message to be sent to the conversation Example: {"content":"string","template_params":{"name":"sample_issue_resolution","category":"UTILITY","language":"en_US","processed_params":{"1":"Gapify"}}}
team_idNoTeam Id for assigning a conversation to a team
inbox_idYesId of inbox in which the conversation is created <br/> Allowed Inbox Types: Website, Phone, Api, Email
source_idYesConversation source id
account_idYesThe numeric ID of the account
contact_idNoContact Id for which conversation is created
extra_bodyNoAdditional JSON body fields to merge into the request (for keys not listed above).
assignee_idNoAgent Id for assigning a conversation to an agent
custom_attributesNoThe object to save custom attributes for conversation, accepts custom attributes key and value Example: {"attribute_key":"attribute_value","priority_conversation_number":3}
additional_attributesNoLets you specify attributes like browser information Example: {}

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations: required auth headers (User API key or Agent bot API key), support for extra_body, and the fact that Persian/Arabic-Indic digits are accepted in IDs and numbers.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then provides useful operational details (endpoint, auth, body fields, extra_body, language note). It is reasonably concise for an 11-parameter tool, though the body-fields list partially duplicates what the schema already provides.

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?

Given 11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and the available annotations, the description covers the essential context: purpose, required fields, auth, endpoint, extra_body, and language/digit handling. It omits account_id as a required path parameter in the body-fields list, but that is implied by the endpoint, and no output schema exists to explain.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that source_id comes from gapify_create_contact_inbox and by noting language and digit handling for text values, which is not captured in 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a conversation for a contact in an inbox.' It also gives the exact endpoint and required source_id. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling gapify_client_create_conversation, which is the most similar alternative.

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?

Usage context is implied by the prerequisite note '(see gapify_create_contact_inbox)' and the auth requirements, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus gapify_client_create_conversation or gapify_create_message, nor when not to use it.

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