Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aspa-mcp

aspa-mcp

by octos-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Transferir conversa

aspa_transfer
Destructive

Transfer a support conversation to a specified agent or team only after explicit user approval, assigning the chat visibly to the chosen recipient.

Instructions

Transfer (or assign) a conversation to an agent or team. Transferring to yourself assumes it. 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>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "aspa_transfer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesAgent or team name as shown in Aspa.
indexNoIndex from aspa_list_conversations, only to tell apart contacts with the same name.
commentNo
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

A4.2/5.0
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 usefully adds what those hints mean in practice: the transfer is a real action visible to the customer or the team. The added consent requirement is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations, though the comment side effect and failure modes are not described.

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: the action, the self-transfer special case, the real-world visibility, and the consent gate. The safety constraint is front-loaded where it will be read.

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, open-world transfer with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the risky parts: consent, customer visibility, and self-transfer semantics. Remaining gaps — what 'comment' attaches, and what happens on refusal or failure — are minor but real.

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 80% and the schema already documents contact, to, index, and conversation_id with meaningful semantics. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, and the undocumented 'comment' parameter is left unexplained in both places, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Transfer (or assign) a conversation') and clarifies the acting target ('to an agent or team'). It also disambiguates a neighboring capability by noting that transferring to yourself assumes the conversation, which maps onto the sibling aspa_assume.

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?

Gives a hard precondition — only call after the user explicitly approved this exact action — which is exactly the guidance an agent needs before a side-effecting call. It does not name alternative tools explicitly (e.g. aspa_assume by name) or list when-not-to-use cases, keeping it just below top marks.

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