Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aspa-mcp

aspa-mcp

by octos-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Marcar como não lida

aspa_mark_unread
DestructiveIdempotent

Marks an Aspa conversation as unread to signal it needs attention. Call only after the user explicitly approves marking that exact conversation.

Instructions

Mark a conversation as unread in the Aspa panel. 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_mark_unread"
  }
}

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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely new context the annotations lack: the effect is externally visible to the customer or team, and it requires explicit user approval. It stops short of covering reversibility or failure behavior, so it sits at solid-adequate rather than rich.

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, each earning its place: the action, its visibility consequence, then the approval gate. The most decision-relevant constraint is front-loaded and there is no redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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 single-target mutation with full schema coverage, an annotations-declared safety profile, and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: what changes, who sees it, and the approval requirement. Only revertibility and the resulting state after success are unaddressed.

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 each parameter (index, contact, conversation_id) already carries a substantive description including the refusal behavior for a mismatched conversation_id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a conversation as unread in the Aspa panel.' An agent can immediately tell this changes read-state, distinct from siblings like aspa_conclude or aspa_snooze. It does not explicitly name a sibling it should be preferred over, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition for invocation: 'Only call it after the user explicitly approved this exact action in the conversation.' That is a clear when-to-use gate, but there are no stated when-not conditions and no named alternative tool for related read-state operations.

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