Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aspa-mcp

aspa-mcp

by octos-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Renomear contato

aspa_rename_contact
DestructiveIdempotent

Rename a conversation contact in Aspa after explicit user approval. Use it to correct or update the contact name visible to the customer or team.

Instructions

Rename the contact of a conversation in Aspa. 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": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "aspa_rename_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
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, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so safety framing is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the change is 'a real action visible to the customer or the team', and it requires explicit user approval of this exact action. It still doesn't mention permissions or how failures are reported.

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 action identity first and the approval constraint immediately after. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 destructive single-action tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it does, its visibility, and the approval gate. It leaves out the conversation_id mismatch guard and the same-name disambiguation that the schema mentions, but those are supplied by the parameters themselves.

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 75%, with the index and conversation_id parameters already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the 'contact' or 'name' arguments — no format, length, or disambiguation guidance — beyond what structured fields provide.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Rename the contact of a conversation in Aspa'), so the operation is unambiguous. It stops short of distinguishing itself from near-neighbours such as aspa_update or aspa_create_contact, but the scoping to a conversation's contact is clear.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition: 'Only call it after the user explicitly approved this exact action.' That is a concrete when-to-call rule the agent can act on. It does not name alternative tools or say when not to use it, so it falls short of the top band.

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