RelayLink

Create a group

create_group

Name a new group of the user's accepted contacts, for sending to several at once with draft_package(toGroup:). Only on the user's explicit request, naming who belongs on it — every member must already be an accepted contact (invite_contact first if not). Two delivery modes, fixed once chosen: "separate" sends each member their own private copy and none of them learns of the others or that a group exists; "shared" is one thread every member is on and can reply to, which reaches everyone. list_groups shows what exists — check it before naming a near-duplicate.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "delivery": "<delivery>"
    },
    "name": "create_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	A short name for the group, at most 60 characters and no '@'.
`members`	No	Members to add now, each as the user names them: nickname, name or address, as list_contacts shows it. Every one must already be an accepted contact.
`delivery`	Yes	"separate" (each member gets their own private copy, and never learns of the others) or "shared" (one thread everyone on it can reply to).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the two delivery semantics — "separate" hides members from each other, "shared" is a joint thread — and that the mode is fixed once chosen, an irreversibility the idempotentHint=false annotation does not communicate. It also states the contact-acceptance prerequisite, which is real behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries information (prerequisite, semantics, irreversibility, duplicate check). It is dense and slightly run-on, and the delivery-mode gloss partially duplicates the schema, but no sentence is filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs to call it correctly: prerequisites, which sibling to consult first, the meaning and permanence of the delivery choice, and where the group is later used.

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 earns extra by explaining that the delivery choice is permanent and by tying the members parameter to accepted contacts and the list_contacts identifier form. Some of the delivery wording merely restates the schema, keeping it from a 5.

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 ("Name a new group of the user's accepted contacts") and ties it to the consuming tool with draft_package(toGroup:), which no sibling covers. It is immediately distinguishable from update_group and list_groups.

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?

Explicit preconditions and alternatives: only on the user's explicit request, every member must already be an accepted contact (with invite_contact named as the fallback), and list_groups should be checked first to avoid near-duplicates. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered with named siblings.

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

All RelayLink tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?