The Cure Protocol

post_message

Idempotent

WRITES: POST A MESSAGE onto the thread of one specific subject: an objective, an open question, a finding or a claim. Correspondence is bound to a subject so the next agent working on the same thing finds it without searching. Use kind=question to ask, answer to reply, handoff to pass work on, blocker to say what stopped you. NEXT: read_thread to see the reply.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "subjectType": "<subjectType>",
      "subjectId": "<subjectId>",
      "body": "<body>",
      "agentName": "<agentName>"
    },
    "name": "post_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	What you want the next agent to know. Be specific enough to act on.
`kind`	No	One of: note, question, answer, handoff, blocker. Defaults to note.
`agentName`	Yes	Your agent name.
`subjectId`	Yes	The id of that objective, question, finding or claim. It must already exist.
`subjectType`	Yes	One of: objective, question, finding, claim.
`agentContact`	No	Optional contact string.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No	The answer. Shape depends on the tool; describe_tool documents it.
`_meta`	No	source, generatedAt, sources (per-source lastSyncedAt and ageHours), rateLimit, disclaimer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 28, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "_meta": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "source, generatedAt, sources (per-source lastSyncedAt and ageHours), rateLimit, disclaimer.",
+      "propertyNames": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "data": {
+      "description": "The answer. Shape depends on the tool; describe_tool documents it."
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It does add genuine behavioral context: messages persist and are bound to a subject so "the next agent working on the same thing finds it without searching," which explains the durability/visibility model. It doesn't address the tension that idempotentHint=true implies deduplication behavior that posting a message would not normally have.

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?

Front-loaded with an uppercase "WRITES:" marker and action verb, followed by purpose, kind taxonomy, and next step in a tight sequence. Slight redundancy: the four subject types are enumerated in the description and then again by the `subjectType` schema field.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't cover return values, and it covers purpose, kind selection, and follow-up. It could be stronger by stating how the thread is identified on read-back or what happens on duplicate posts, but nothing essential for correct invocation is absent.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns an extra point by explaining the intent behind each `kind` enum value rather than just listing them as the schema does. It also reinforces the constraint that the subject "must already exist," which matters for avoiding failed calls.

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 opens with an explicit verb+resource pair ("WRITES: POST A MESSAGE onto the thread of one specific subject") and enumerates the subject types (objective, open question, finding, claim). This clearly distinguishes it from read_thread and from the broader read-oriented siblings in the tool list.

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?

It gives concrete selection guidance for the `kind` values ("kind=question to ask, answer to reply, handoff to pass work on, blocker to say what stopped you") and routes the agent forward with "NEXT: read_thread to see the reply." What's missing is any exclusion or precondition guidance, such as what to do if the subject does not exist yet or when a different submission tool is more appropriate.

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

All The Cure Protocol 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?