Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aspa-mcp

aspa-mcp

by octos-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Adiar conversa

aspa_snooze
Destructive

Postpone a support conversation for 1 hour, 1 day, or 1 week after explicit user approval, making the scheduled snooze visible to the team or customer.

Instructions

Snooze (adiar) a conversation for 1 hour, 1 day or 1 week. 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>",
      "duration": "<duration>"
    },
    "name": "aspa_snooze"
  }
}

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.
durationYes
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 and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond them: the action is customer/team-visible and requires explicit user approval. It still doesn't say what happens to the conversation afterward (e.g., whether it leaves the open list) or whether snooze can be undone.

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?

Two tight sentences: the capability first, then the approval guardrail. No redundant restatement of the title or schema, and the safety-critical constraint is stated plainly rather than buried.

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 4-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: scope, duration options, visibility, and the approval requirement. The main remaining gap is disambiguation from aspa_snooze_until and the post-action state of the conversation.

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%, so contact, index, and conversation_id are already well documented in the schema. The description only restates the duration options that the enum already enumerates, adding no syntax or behavior beyond the structured fields; 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?

"Snooze (adiar) a conversation for 1 hour, 1 day or 1 week" gives a specific verb, the affected resource, and the exact allowed durations. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling aspa_snooze_until, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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?

Provides a hard precondition: "Only call it after the user explicitly approved this exact action in the conversation." That is genuine when-to-use guidance, though it omits when to prefer aspa_snooze_until, aspa_conclude, or aspa_mark_unread instead.

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