Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aspa-mcp

aspa-mcp

by octos-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Abrir rascunho no Aspa

aspa_open_draft

Open a visible Aspa conversation window with the reply box pre-filled so users can review, edit, and send a draft themselves in the official panel.

Instructions

Open a visible Aspa window on the conversation with the reply box pre-filled with the draft, so the user reviews, edits and sends it themselves in the official panel. Returns as soon as the window is open; the user closes it when done (default limit 20 minutes). While it is open, other Aspa actions and notifications are paused. Whether the user sent it is recorded in the audit log. Use this instead of aspa_send_message when the user wants to review in Aspa.

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>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "aspa_open_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesDraft text in pt-BR.
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.
timeoutMinutesNo
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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the call returns as soon as the window opens, that the user closes it, that there is a default 20-minute limit, that other Aspa actions and notifications are paused while it is open, and that send status lands in the audit log. This is exactly the kind of blocking/side-effect context a mutation tool needs. It does not contradict readOnlyHint=false or openWorldHint=true, though it stops short of describing what the immediate return payload contains.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the lifecycle (returns immediately, user closes, 20-minute limit), then side effects, then the routing rule. Dense but every sentence carries information; the middle sentences are slightly long but not padded.

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 five-parameter, no-output-schema, human-blocking tool, the description covers lifecycle, timeout, paused concurrent actions, and audit outcome, which is what an agent needs to decide and to set expectations. The only gap is the precise immediate return value or success/failure signal of the open call.

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 coverage is already 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the pre-filled text is the draft the user will review, and the 'default limit 20 minutes' supplies the default value for timeoutMinutes, which the schema does not declare. The index/contact disambiguation rule is left to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action on a specific resource: opening a visible Aspa window on the conversation with the reply box pre-filled with the draft, so the user sends it manually. It is unmistakably different from aspa_send_message or aspa_send_template, which an agent can tell without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use this instead of aspa_send_message when the user wants to review in Aspa.' That names both the alternative and the condition that selects it, and also clarifies the human-in-the-loop review path versus direct sending.

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