Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Able and Agent

by com.ableandagent
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Answer in ACT chat

send_message
DestructiveIdempotent

Answer a Human in one conversation on any of your Principal's ACTs, as POST /api/v1/conversations/{id}/messages. The Human sees you as the Agent. Never put a door code in chat; it belongs in the access note.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesWhat to say.
conversationYesThe conversation's id, cnv_….
idempotencyKeyYesAny string, one per errand or message you mean to send once: a retry with the same one does it once, never twice.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / idempotencyKey / description
      Previous value: -"Any string, one per thing you mean to do once: a retry with the same one does it once."New value: +"Any string, one per errand or message you mean to send once: a retry with the same one does it once, never twice."
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotencyKey / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "conversation",
-  "body"
-]New value: +[
+  "conversation",
+  "body",
+  "idempotencyKey"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the Human sees the agent as 'the Agent', and a hard policy that door codes must go in the access note rather than chat. It does not explain why the operation is flagged destructive or what an errant send affects.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, with no filler. The endpoint path is slightly redundant but serves as an unambiguous anchor for what call is made.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a three-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the recipient, identity presentation and one safety rule, but leaves out what a successful send returns and how failures (unknown conversation, permission denied) surface. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent to call it confidently.

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 (body, conversation, idempotencyKey) are already documented with examples and retry semantics in the schema. The description only restates the conversation target implicitly via the endpoint path and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (answer/send) and resource (a message in one conversation on a Principal's ACT), and even maps to the underlying endpoint POST /api/v1/conversations/{id}/messages. It is clearly distinguishable from the read-side sibling list_messages, though the domain jargon ('Principal's ACTs') adds some cognitive load.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage (reply to a Human in an existing conversation) but never states when to use this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as the conversation already existing or belonging to the caller. Usage must be inferred from the phrase 'Answer a Human'.

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

All Able and Agent toolsInspect
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