Skip to main content
Glama

Agent Broker

by dev.hatchloop

handle_inbound

Classify an inbound message on behalf of an SMB and get a recommended next action. Classifies intent (booking request, cancellation, opt-out, inquiry, complaint) and returns a suggested_action for YOUR agent to act on - opt-outs are recorded durably; nothing else is auto-routed or auto-executed by this tool.

EXAMPLE USER QUERIES THAT MATCH THIS TOOL: user: "Process this customer reply for me: 'Yes I want to book Tuesday'" -> call handle_inbound({"smb_id": "smb_xyz", "inbound_channel": "sms", "raw_message": "Yes I want to book Tuesday"})

WHEN TO USE: Use when an SMB needs inbound message triage — classifying incoming contact-form submissions, SMS replies, voicemails, or email inquiries. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use for outbound communications. Do not use for compliance-flagged recipient lists without verified opt-in records. COST: $0.03 per_call LATENCY: ~3000ms EXECUTION: async_by_default (use get_outcome to retrieve result)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
senderNo
smb_idYes
raw_messageYes
routing_rulesNoOptional override routing policy for this SMB
idempotency_keyNoOptional client-supplied key for safe retries. Replaying the same key within 24h returns the original receipt - the operation is NOT re-executed and NOT re-charged.
inbound_channelYes
received_at_isoNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional client-supplied key for safe retries. Replaying the same key within 24h returns the original receipt - the operation is NOT re-executed and NOT re-charged.",
+  "maxLength": 128,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the sparse annotations, the description discloses that opt-outs are recorded durably, that nothing else is auto-executed, and that execution is async with results retrieved via get_outcome. It also includes cost and latency, giving the agent a clear operational picture before calling.

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?

The description is front-loaded with its core purpose and then organized into terse, labeled sections covering examples, usage boundaries, cost, latency, and execution mode. Every section earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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 7-parameter asynchronous tool with no output schema, the description covers selection criteria, execution mode, result retrieval, and cost/latency well. It stops short of describing the suggested_action return shape and some optional parameter semantics, but it provides enough for a correct first call.

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 only 29%, so the description needed to compensate. It does illustrate the three required parameters (smb_id, inbound_channel, raw_message) in a concrete example and maps channel types to real-world inbound sources, but sender, received_at_iso, and routing_rules receive little or no additional semantic guidance.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Classify an inbound message on behalf of an SMB and get a recommended next action,' and it enumerates the intents it handles. It also explicitly states that nothing else is auto-routed or auto-executed, which clearly separates this tool from action-oriented siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections, covering inbound triage channels and excluding outbound communications and unverified compliance-flagged lists. It also includes a concrete example query-to-invocation mapping, making both selection and first-call construction unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Agent Broker toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct resource+action pairs (find_business vs verify_business, check_booking_link vs import_booking_url, get_status vs get_outcome). The main confusable pairs are send_message vs send_transactional_confirmation and verify_business vs verify_company_record, but their descriptions draw clear boundary lines.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set overwhelmingly follows lower_snake_case verb_noun naming (call_business, check_quota, find_business, send_message, verify_company_record). Minor deviations like self_test and mint_key, plus inconsistent verb choices (lookup_ vs get_ vs find_), prevent a perfect score.

Tool Count3/5

At 23 tools, the server falls into the heavy range and bundles several unrelated domains: SMB booking/messaging, trade and sanctions compliance, company verification, and platform operations. Each tool is individually reasonable, but the set feels like multiple servers merged into one.

Completeness3/5

Core SMB workflows are well covered: find/verify/import/book, messaging with conversation handling, and compliance preflights. Notable gaps include no consent-record management even though send_message requires consent_record_id for marketing, no update/delete lifecycle for leads or businesses, and no webhook configuration despite webhooks being referenced.

Resources