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

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

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 readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that the message is customer-visible, that it is an external side effect, and that it must not fire after a handoff. It does not discuss failure modes or acknowledgement behavior, but with rich annotations a 4 is warranted.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the risk, then the alternative. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

Mutation tool, but annotations carry the destructive/open-world profile, both params are fully documented, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. 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 both parameters carry descriptions including the 10,000-character limit, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning about content formatting or conversation_id semantics, which is the expected baseline-3 outcome.

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 ('Send a customer-visible reply to a Chatway conversation') plus the acting identity ('as the authenticated agent'), and explicitly contrasts with the sibling add-note. An agent can distinguish it from list/add/update siblings without opening a 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?

Gives explicit exclusions ('do not use it when the user only asks for a draft or after human handoff has been requested') and names the correct alternative ('Use `add-note` for internal comments'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure that earns a 5.

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?