Crevio

send_message

Destructive

Continue a chat with follow-up instructions or answers — the agent keeps its context. Resumes a run waiting in needs_input, or queues a new run when the last one finished. Returns run_busy while a run is still in progress. Optionally waits for the reply.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chat_id`	Yes	A chat id (aichat_...). A run id works too — it resolves to that run's chat.
`message`	Yes	The follow-up to send into the conversation.
`timeout_seconds`	No	Seconds to wait for the reply before returning (default 0: return the new run immediately). Capped like ask_crevio's wait.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`object`	Yes
`result`	No
`reused`	No
`status`	Yes
`chat_id`	No
`summary`	No
`task_id`	Yes
`next_step`	No
`task_name`	No
`created_at`	Yes
`started_at`	No
`completed_at`	No
`error_message`	No
`wait_timed_out`	No	The wait ended first. The work is still running: follow it with the tool next_step names.
`credits_consumed`	No
`pending_approval_ids`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 29, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / timeout_seconds / description

Previous value: -"Seconds to wait for the reply before returning (default 0: return the new run immediately)."New value: +"Seconds to wait for the reply before returning (default 0: return the new run immediately). Capped like ask_crevio's wait."

changedInput schema / properties / timeout_seconds / maximum
```
Previous value: -90New value: +300
```
addedOutput schema / properties / next_step
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / wait_timed_out

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The wait ended first. The work is still running: follow it with the tool next_step names.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 22, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / status / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "pending",
-  "running",
-  "completed",
-  "failed",
-  "needs_input",
-  "timed_out",
-  "unknown"
-]New value: +[
+  "pending",
+  "running",
+  "completed",
+  "failed",
+  "needs_input",
+  "timed_out",
+  "unknown",
+  "skipped"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedSep 6, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / status / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "pending",
-  "running",
-  "completed",
-  "failed",
-  "needs_input",
-  "timed_out"
-]New value: +[
+  "pending",
+  "running",
+  "completed",
+  "failed",
+  "needs_input",
+  "timed_out",
+  "unknown"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedSep 2, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / status / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "pending",
-  "running",
-  "completed",
-  "failed",
-  "needs_input"
-]New value: +[
+  "pending",
+  "running",
+  "completed",
+  "failed",
+  "needs_input",
+  "timed_out"
+]

First observedAug 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real behavioral detail on top: the run_busy outcome while a run is in flight, the resume-vs-queue branching, and the optional blocking wait. It does not explain what the destructive mutation actually affects or the shape of the reply beyond the wait flag.

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?

Four short sentences, all front-loaded with the core action first, then the branching behavior, then the failure mode, then the wait option. Every sentence carries information; density is high but there is no obvious filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be explained, yet the description still surfaces the run_busy return and the wait semantics that matter for calling correctly. Together with the annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed; only the effects of the destructive mutation are left implicit.

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%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema, including chat_id accepting a run id and the timeout_seconds cap. The description's 'optionally waits for the reply' restates the timeout behavior rather than adding syntax or defaults beyond what the schema provides, so 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 (continue/send) and resource (chat message) and immediately scopes it: 'the agent keeps its context'. It differentiates itself from start_chat (new conversation) and ask_crevio by describing the two operational modes — resuming a needs_input run vs. queueing a new run after the last one finished.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: resume a run in needs_input, or queue a new run when the previous one finished. It also implies a when-not condition by noting the tool returns run_busy while a run is in progress. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as start_chat or wait_for_run, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All Crevio 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?