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

gapify-mcp-server

by mh-zeynal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Inboxes: Show Inbox Agent Bot

gapify_show_inbox_agent_bot
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the agent bot connected to a specific inbox, if any exists. Use it to check which automation agent handles conversations in an inbox before configuring support workflows.

Instructions

Get the agent bot connected to an inbox, if any [Inboxes] GET /api/v1/accounts/{account_id}/inboxes/{id}/agent_bot Auth: User API key (header api-access-token). 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>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "gapify_show_inbox_agent_bot"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID of the inbox
account_idYesThe numeric ID of the account

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower; the description adds real context beyond them: the required auth header (`api-access-token`), the concrete endpoint, and the 'if any' hint that the bot may be absent. It still says nothing about error/404 behavior when no bot is connected.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core sentence and endpoint are front-loaded and tight, but the trailing note about Persian/Arabic-Indic digits is boilerplate that carries little meaning for a read-only lookup with only IDs as input. It consumes space without earning it.

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 simple two-parameter read with no output schema, the definition supplies purpose, auth, and endpoint, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Only the shape of the returned bot object and the no-bot case are left unspecified, which are minor gaps.

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% and both parameters (account_id, id) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or digit-handling detail specific to these parameters beyond the path template.

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 and resource ('Get the agent bot connected to an inbox') and even names the exact endpoint path, which pins down scope precisely. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling gapify_set_inbox_agent_bot (write) but never names it explicitly.

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 phrase 'if any' signals the read may return nothing, which is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as gapify_list_inbox_agents or gapify_set_inbox_agent_bot. Usage is only implied by the resource path.

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