Chatway Live Chat

Send Customer Reply

send-message

Destructive

Send a customer-visible reply to a Chatway conversation as the authenticated agent. This creates an external side effect; do not use it when the user only asks for a draft or after human handoff has been requested. Use add-note for internal comments.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	Yes	Reply text sent to the customer, up to 10,000 characters.
`conversation_id`	Yes	UUID of the conversation to reply in.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 15, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / content / description

Previous value: -"Message body to send."New value: +"Reply text sent to the customer, up to 10,000 characters."

addedInput schema / properties / conversation_id / description
```
Added value: +"UUID of the conversation to reply in."
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "message": {
+      "properties": {
+        "content": {
+          "type": [
+            "string",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "conversation_id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "created_at": {
+          "description": "ISO 8601 timestamp.",
+          "type": [
+            "string",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "type": {
+          "type": [
+            "string",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: 'creates an external side effect' and the draft/handoff exclusion make the blast radius concrete. It stops short of describing delivery failure modes or rate limits, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and side effect before the exclusions and the alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description needs only to establish purpose, side-effect nature, and routing. It does all three, so nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters including the 10,000-character limit on content. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (send), resource (customer-visible reply), and scope (Chatway conversation, as the authenticated agent). It also names the sibling it is not (add-note), so an agent can differentiate without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly gives when-not conditions ('do not use it when the user only asks for a draft or after human handoff has been requested') and names the alternative for internal comments ('Use add-note'). Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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

All Chatway Live Chat 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?