Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aspa-mcp

aspa-mcp

by octos-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Concluir conversa

aspa_conclude
Destructive

Conclude a support conversation after explicit user approval and report whether it left the open list.

Instructions

Conclude a conversation and report whether it left the open list. This is a real action visible to the customer or the team. Only call it after the user explicitly approved this exact action in the conversation.

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": {
      "contact": "<contact>"
    },
    "name": "aspa_conclude"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
indexNoIndex from aspa_list_conversations, only to tell apart contacts with the same name.
contactYesContact name exactly as listed. Required for every action that changes a conversation.
conversation_idNoconversation_id returned by aspa_read_conversation. When given, the action is refused if the open conversation is a different one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description adds real value by stating the action is visible to the customer or team and that it reports whether the conversation left the open list. It still does not say whether the conclusion is reversible or how failures surface, which aspa_reopen implies but never states.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the effect and the approval gate front-loaded ahead of the caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information: what it does, its external visibility, and the consent requirement.

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 three-parameter mutation with a fully documented schema and annotations covering destructiveness, the description gives the caller what it needs: the effect, the observability, and the consent gate. The main remaining gap is the reversibility path, which is implied by the sibling aspa_reopen but not mentioned here.

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 contact, index and conversation_id are already fully documented, including the refusal behavior tied to conversation_id. The description adds no param-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ("Conclude a conversation") plus the observable outcome ("report whether it left the open list"). It is clearly not a read or send operation, so an agent can distinguish it from aspa_send_message or aspa_read_conversation, though it never explicitly names the opposite sibling aspa_reopen as the rollback path.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides an explicit, hard precondition: only call after the user explicitly approved this exact action. That is a genuine when-to-use rule rather than an implication. It lacks guidance on when to prefer aspa_snooze or aspa_transfer instead, so the alternative-selection half is absent.

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