Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aspa-mcp

aspa-mcp

by octos-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Responder citando

aspa_reply_to_message
Destructive

Quotes and replies to a specific WhatsApp message using its conversation index, sending only after explicit user approval.

Instructions

Reply quoting a specific message (WhatsApp reply). messageIndex comes from aspa_read_conversation. 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>",
      "messageIndex": "<messageIndex>",
      "quoted_text": "<quoted_text>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "aspa_reply_to_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesExact reply 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.
quoted_textYesA short excerpt of the message being quoted, copied from aspa_read_conversation, to make sure the right message is quoted.
messageIndexYes
loadMoreTimesNo
conversation_idNoconversation_id returned by aspa_read_conversation. When given, the action is refused if the open conversation is a different one.
confirm_duplicateNoOnly true when the user explicitly wants to repeat the same message sent less than 2 minutes ago.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's main added value is the confirmation requirement and the note that the message is visible to the customer or team. That is useful, but it adds nothing about duplicate detection, refusal behavior, or what happens when confirm_duplicate is false and a recent identical message exists.

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 carrying distinct information: identity of the action, provenance of the key parameter, and the approval gate. The most important constraint (destructive real action needing approval) is front-loaded after the purpose statement.

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 an 8-parameter destructive messaging tool with no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent most needs to avoid a mistake: where messageIndex comes from and that explicit approval is required. The undocumented loadMoreTimes and the duplicate-confirmation flow are the remaining gaps, but they are minor relative to what is stated.

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 75%, and the description usefully explains that messageIndex comes from aspa_read_conversation — a parameter the schema itself leaves undocumented. However, it says nothing about loadMoreTimes, the index/contact pairing, or quoted_text validation, so it only partially compensates for the remaining coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Reply quoting a specific message") and disambiguates the channel with "(WhatsApp reply)", which separates it from a plain send among siblings such as aspa_send_message or aspa_send_template. It stops short of naming the non-quoting alternative explicitly, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 a concrete precondition — "Only call it after the user explicitly approved this exact action" — which is a real gating rule an agent can apply. It also points to aspa_read_conversation as the source of messageIndex, but never states when to prefer aspa_send_message (no quote) instead, so the alternative-routing half is missing.

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