◎ Discry Score
intercom.com
crm · API
B
0 / 100
DISCOVERY0
COMPREHENSION0
Category leader: 89 (B)
Discry your API →
CRM · RANK #4 OF 13

Intercom is Good to agents.

Discry independently scored how well an AI agent can discover and understand the Intercom API from what’s public — not whether it’s usable. Below: every signal we checked, what’s costing the score, and what to change.

Discry your API — freeView the docs ↗

SCORED UNDER RUBRIC 1.2 · A full re-launch under Discry Score 2.5 — a new behavioral instrument, not comparable to these scores — is in progress.

Discovery

45% of score · 64/100
OpenAPI specA machine-readable OpenAPI/Swagger spec agents can parse.Pass
llms.txtAn llms.txt index that points agents to the docs that matter.Pass
llms.txt qualityThe llms.txt is focused, current, and well under the size budget.Partial
llms-full.txtA full-text bundle agents can load in one request.Fail
AGENTS.mdAn AGENTS.md that tells coding agents how to build on the API.Partial
.well-known/mcp.jsonA discoverable MCP manifest at a well-known path.Fail
MCP registryThe API is listed in a public MCP registry.Pass
robots.txt AI directivesrobots.txt allows (or explicitly guides) AI crawlers.Fail
SitemapA sitemap so agents can enumerate the docs surface.Pass

Comprehension

55% of score · 91/100
Task-oriented descriptionsEndpoints described by what they accomplish, not just their shape.Pass
Realistic examplesRunnable, real-world request/response examples.Pass
Multi-step workflowsDocs that chain calls into complete jobs an agent can follow.Pass
Error-recovery guidanceDocumented failure modes and how to recover from them.Partial
Answer-first formatThe answer leads; preamble does not bury it.Pass
Capability boundariesClear limits — what the API can and cannot do.Pass
Naming consistencyConsistent, predictable naming across endpoints.Pass
Heading hierarchyClean heading structure agents can navigate.Pass
Markdown docsDocs available as clean markdown, not JS-rendered HTML only.Pass
Token efficiencyDocs are concise enough to fit an agent context window.Partial

What we found

  • An agent that lands on an Intercom endpoint page gets what it needs immediately: each reference page leads with a task-oriented sentence ("You can create a new contact (ie. user or lead)") followed by the method, path, version, and security scheme before any detail — answer-first by default.
  • Every documentation page is available as clean, structured markdown via a `.md` suffix, plus a full llms.txt index — so an agent never has to scrape JS-rendered HTML to read the docs.
  • A complete, versioned OpenAPI 3.0.1 spec is public on GitHub (intercom/Intercom-OpenAPI) with raw YAML per version (2.7–2.15), giving an agent a machine-readable contract for the entire surface.
  • Discovery is held back by basics: there is NO robots.txt at all (returns 404), no llms-full.txt, and no /.well-known/mcp.json — so the site sends no explicit crawler signals even though the content underneath is agent-friendly.
  • The llms.txt exists and is developer-focused, but at ~243KB it is far too large to load as a single agent context window — it is a flat link dump of every doc page across every API version rather than a right-sized summary.

What to change

Prioritized by impact on discoverability. You (or your docs platform) deploy these — Discry never touches your API.

  1. 01Add a robots.txt that explicitly allows AI crawlers (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, Google-Extended, CCBot) — the absence of any robots.txt is the single biggest discovery gap and a trivial fix.
  2. 02Publish a right-sized llms.txt (<50KB) scoped to the current stable API version with descriptive sections, and move the exhaustive all-versions index to llms-full.txt — the current 243KB file is too large for agents to consume in one pass.
  3. 03Add a standardized AGENTS.md to the primary public repos (the OpenAPI repo already has a useful CLAUDE.md — promote/duplicate it as AGENTS.md so it matches the rising cross-tool convention).
  4. 04Expand error documentation from a code-and-description table to explicit recovery guidance for the top 5–10 error scenarios (e.g. what to send on 409 conflict, how to back off on 429 beyond the existing rate-limit section).
  5. 05Publish a /.well-known/mcp.json pointing at Intercom's already-live remote MCP server so agents can auto-discover it from the docs domain.

Execution coverage · INFORMATIONAL, UNSCORED

Whether an agent can actually complete a call and recover from errors is the deeper Audit layer — documented here, but not part of the Discry Score.

Access Token (Bearer / Personal Access Token)OAuth2 Error format documented Rate limits documented Pagination documented Idempotency documented

Execution characteristics are documented thoroughly: Bearer access-token and OAuth2 auth, machine-parseable JSON error objects (error.list with stable errors[].code values and a request_id), explicit rate limits (10k/min per app, 25k/min per workspace) with X-RateLimit-* headers, and cursor-based pagination. No idempotency-key support is documented.

See your own Discry Score.

Drop your API docs URL. See what an agent sees — in 60 seconds, free.

Discry your API — free