send-inbox-messageSend a live-chat inbox message via POST /v1/send-message using bot_id, fbId, and message text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fbId | Yes | End-user fbId in the inbox | |
| bot_id | Yes | Numeric bot id | |
| message | Yes | Plain text to send as an agent or human from the inbox |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | JSON or plain text body returned by the Botsify HTTP API |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description is consistent with a write operation. It adds the HTTP method and endpoint, which gives a bit more context, but does not disclose any side effects, permission requirements, or error behavior beyond that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and endpoint, then lists the required parameters. There is no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the small parameter set, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is adequately informative for a message-sending tool. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema presumably covers that, and annotations handle the write nature.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), and the description repeats their names but adds no additional semantic detail. The schema already explains bot_id, fbId, and message, so the description provides minimal extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Send' and the resource 'live-chat inbox message', along with the HTTP endpoint POST /v1/send-message. It mentions the key parameters, making the tool's function obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like send-user-message or send-converse-message.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what the tool does without mentioning alternatives or exclusion criteria. There is no 'use this for' or 'instead of' language.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as send-converse-message, send-inbox-message, send-user-message, and stream-user-message, which all deliver messages but with subtle differences. Similarly, list-bot-messenger-users and list-messenger-users both fetch messenger users, and start-builder-chat, clear-builder-conversation, and store-builder-response all manage builder chat state. Descriptions help, but the boundaries are still confusing.
Tool names consistently use hyphenated lowercase verb-noun format, but the verbs and nouns vary significantly in specificity. For example, 'get-query-response' vs 'query-mcp-agent' vs 'stream-user-message' all imply querying but with different styles. The pattern is readable but not highly predictable, with some names like 'change-user-activation' and 'patch-instruction-section' deviating from the simple verb_object structure.
With 44 tools, this server feels overloaded. The breadth covers bots, messaging, templates, whitelabel, and versions, but many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple message-sending variants). The count exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many', making it difficult for agents to select the right tool without extensive context.
The tool set covers the main lifecycle: agent creation, versioning, deployment, deletion, messaging, conversation history, user management, template management, and whitelabel operations. Minor gaps exist, such as missing delete for WhatsApp templates or update operations for user attributes, but these are workable edge cases. Core workflows are well supported.