Skip to main content
Glama
uk-kd

operbots-mcp

by uk-kd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Сохранить заготовку ответа

replies_save

Create or update reply templates for the operbots panel. Provide a title to name the template and use the reply parameter to edit an existing one.

Instructions

Без параметра reply заводит новую заготовку, с ним — правит существующую. Название нужно, чтобы заготовку было чем позвать; без него панель обойдётся, но в списке она станет безымянной.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
caseNoДело: название или идентификатор. Если не указать, берётся дело по умолчанию, иначе последнее открытое в панели.
textNoТекст ответа. 4096 — грубая верхняя граница, а не предел платформы: свой предел у каждой, см. operbots_catalog what=platforms.
replyNoКакую заготовку править: название или идентификатор. Не указывайте для новой.
titleNoНазвание заготовки.
parse_modeNoРазметка: HTML или пустая строка для обычного текста.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / parse_mode
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Разметка: HTML или пустая строка для обычного текста.",
+  "enum": [
+    "",
+    "HTML"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.16
    • changedInput schema / properties / text / description
      Previous value: -"Текст ответа."New value: +"Текст ответа. 4096 — грубая верхняя граница, а не предел платформы: свой предел у каждой, см. operbots_catalog what=platforms."
  3. Addedv0.1.14

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, destructive=false, and the description is consistent with them. The description adds genuine behavioral context not in the annotations: omitting `title` still works but leaves the template unnamed in listings, a real downstream consequence.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the create/edit distinction and then the title caveat. Nothing is wasted and the important conditional comes first, though it is not maximally tight.

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?

With five optional params, full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description plus schema covers what an agent needs: branch behavior and title consequences. It does not need to explain return values. Adequately complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the create-vs-edit role of `reply` and the functional importance of `title` (it is how the template is later referenced). That is a modest but real value-add over the per-field schema text.

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 the branching behavior precisely: without `reply` it creates a new template, with it edits the existing one. Combined with the name/title, an agent knows this persists a reply template. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like replies_list/replies_delete, but the verb+resource are 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 explicit conditional usage: omit `reply` for a new template, supply it to edit an existing one. That covers the main when-to-use decision. No named alternatives or exclusions, but for a save/upsert tool the routing is clear.

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