Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aspa-mcp

aspa-mcp

by octos-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Enviar mensagem

aspa_send_message
Destructive

Sends an approved free-text WhatsApp message to a customer within the 24-hour response window, using contact details and optional conversation ID to target the correct chat.

Instructions

Send a free-text WhatsApp message to the customer. Only works inside the 24h response window. 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>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "aspa_send_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesExact message 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.
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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real value on top: the 24h window limit, the fact that the message is visible to the customer or team, and the explicit-approval requirement. Rate limits, failure modes and the duplicate-send behaviour are left unstated, but the schema's confirm_duplicate parameter partly covers that last point.

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 an independent constraint, with the purpose stated first and the approval gate last. No filler and nothing repeated.

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, destructive, externally visible action with no output schema, the description supplies the safety-critical context an agent needs before calling it. The gaps are secondary: it does not mention how duplicate sends are handled or what response to expect, though the schema covers the former and a confirmation is implied.

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, conversation_id and confirm_duplicate are already fully documented, including the 2-minute duplicate rule. The description adds no extra meaning for any parameter, which meets but does not exceed the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 ('Send a free-text WhatsApp message to the customer') and the qualifier 'free-text' implicitly separates it from aspa_send_template and aspa_send_attachment. It stops short of naming those siblings outright, so an agent must infer the routing itself.

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 clear precondition ('Only works inside the 24h response window') and a hard approval gate ('Only call it after the user explicitly approved this exact action'). What it does not say is what to do when the window has expired, even though aspa_send_template is the obvious fallback in the sibling list.

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