Skip to main content
Glama

missive

by io.usefulapi

Update conversation

missive_update_conversation
Destructive

Update a conversation — assign/unassign users, add/remove shared labels, close/reopen, move to inbox, or set subject/color/team. Missive: PATCH /conversations/{id}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe resource id (a UUID-like string).
teamNoTeam id to move the conversation to.
closeNoClose (archive) the conversation.
colorNoSet the conversation color.
reopenNoReopen the conversation.
subjectNoSet the conversation subject.
add_to_inboxNoMove the conversation back to the inbox.
organizationNoOrganization id (context for the update).
add_assigneesNoUser ids to assign.
remove_assigneesNoUser ids to unassign.
add_shared_labelsNoShared label ids to add.
remove_shared_labelsNoShared label ids to remove.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotation already marks this as destructive. The description adds little beyond the listed actions, omitting details like permission requirements or side effects. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose, lists actions efficiently, and includes a technical endpoint reference. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main actions but lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavior when conflicting parameters are used. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, but the description adds value by grouping parameters into actions (e.g., assign/unassign, add/remove labels), providing a high-level understanding beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool updates a conversation and enumerates specific actions (assign/unassign users, add/remove labels, close/reopen, move to inbox, set subject/color/team). It is the only tool for updating conversations among siblings.

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?

The description lists what can be done but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives. However, since no sibling tools update conversations, usage is implied. A score of 4 reflects the lack of explicit guidance but sufficient clarity.

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

All missive 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a unique resource-action combination (e.g., missive_get_contact vs missive_list_contacts). There is no overlap in functionality; the purposes are clearly distinct.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a strict 'missive_verb_noun' pattern in lowercase snake_case. Verbs are limited to create, get, list, and update, applied consistently across resources.

Tool Count4/5

With 19 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal range (3-15) but still reasonable for covering multiple resources like contacts, conversations, messages, and lists. Each tool serves a specific purpose without unnecessary redundancy.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are covered: listing, getting, creating contacts/drafts, managing conversations, and viewing sub-items. Minor gaps exist (no update for contacts, no delete for any resource), but these are acceptable for an initial release.

Resources