Skip to main content
Glama
mh-zeynal

gapify-mcp-server

by mh-zeynal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Inboxes: Update Inbox

gapify_update_inbox

Update an inbox's settings such as name, avatar, and auto-assignment using the Gapify API.

Instructions

Update an inbox's settings, such as name, avatar and auto assignment [Inboxes] PATCH /api/v1/accounts/{account_id}/inboxes/{id} Auth: User API key (header api-access-token). Body fields: name, enable_auto_assignment (required), avatar, channel. 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
idYesID of the inbox
nameNoThe name of the inbox
avatarNoImage file for avatar
channelNoChannel settings object. For a website inbox: {type: "web_widget", website_url, welcome_title, welcome_tagline, agent_away_message, widget_color}. Text values may be Persian. Example: {"website_url":"https://example.com","welcome_title":"string","welcome_tagline":"string","agent_away_message":"string","widget_color":"string"}
account_idYesThe numeric ID of the account
extra_bodyNoAdditional JSON body fields to merge into the request (for keys not listed above).
enable_auto_assignmentYesEnable Auto Assignment Example: false

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds genuinely useful context not in annotations: the required auth header and the fact that Persian/Arabic-Indic digits are accepted unmodified. It does not clarify partial-update semantics (whether omitted fields are cleared), which matters for a non-idempotent PATCH.

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?

Purpose and endpoint are front-loaded, then auth, then body fields. The field list duplicates schema content, costing a little space, but the description stays compact and scannable.

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 mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers auth, updatable fields, and the extra_body escape hatch. Only the semantics of partial updates and failure behavior are unaddressed; otherwise an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema. The description largely restates the body fields and even repeats extra_body, adding only the i18n digit note; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Update an inbox's settings' with concrete examples (name, avatar, auto assignment), plus the HTTP route. This clearly separates it from siblings like gapify_update_inbox_agents or gapify_create_inbox, though no sibling is named 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?

Usage is only implied by the tool name and the listed fields. Nothing states when to prefer this over gapify_update_inbox_agents or when an inbox should be created instead; the agent must infer the context from the resource name alone.

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