Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by com.debitura

Send Case Message

send_case_message
Destructive

Send a chat message on a case to the collection partner handling it. The partner is notified by email. The message is attributed to a named team member, so a sender is REQUIRED: pass the sender's userId or email from list_team_members. Ask the user who the message should be sent as if it is not obvious.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
caseIdYesDebitura case ID (GUID)
messageYesThe message to send
senderEmailNoTeam member email sending the message (alternative to senderUserId)
senderUserIdNoTeam member ID sending the message (from list_team_members)

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the 'destructiveHint' annotation, the description reveals that the partner is notified by email and the message is attributed to a named team member. These behaviors are not captured in annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds unique value. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the purpose, behavioral effects (notification, attribution), parameter requirements and sourcing, and user interaction guidance. Given there is no output schema, the description is fully adequate for a send operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds meaning by specifying that senderEmail or senderUserId should come from 'list_team_members' and that one is required. It also advises to ask the user when the sender is not obvious.

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?

The description clearly states the tool sends a chat message on a case to the collection partner, and it specifies the action ('send'), the resource ('case'), and additional details (notification by email, attribution). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_case_messages' by focusing on sending rather than reading.

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?

The description provides clear context: the partner is notified, the message is attributed, and a sender is required. It references 'list_team_members' as a source for the sender. It also advises to ask the user if not obvious. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives.

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

All mcp-server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct resource and action: case vs. tasks vs. files vs. messages vs. payments vs. account summary. The get_case_* family is broken out by specific sub-resource (activity, contract status, messages, payments, tasks), and preview_case is explicitly distinguished from create_case. list_tasks vs. get_case_tasks are scoped differently and the descriptions call out the difference.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern: create_, get_, list_, send_, upload_, preview_, ping. Even the standalone 'ping' is a common health-check convention and does not break the pattern. No camelCase or mixed verb styles appear.

Tool Count4/5

At 16 tools, the server is slightly above the typical 3-15 well-scoped range, but the breadth of the domain (case lifecycle, tasks, files, messages, payments, team management) justifies each tool. The count feels reasonable rather than bloated, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

Completeness4/5

The core workflow is well covered: preview, create, monitor (list/get, activity, payments, messages, contract status, files, tasks), communicate, and attach files. Missing operations like update_case, delete_case, or explicit task resolution are gaps, but they are often not needed in this domain since tasks auto-resolve and the partner drives legal processes. Overall, the surface is complete enough for typical agent workflows.

Resources