Roman Kryvolapov Engineering Blog

Send a message to the author

send_message

Destructive

Send a message to Roman Kryvolapov, the author of this blog: a question about one of the articles, a suggestion for a new article, or a job or project offer. It goes to his inbox, and he replies by email to the address given. Use it only when the user asked to contact the author, with the user’s own name and email address — never invent them — and show the user the text before sending. At most 20 messages a day are accepted from all agents together, and 3 from one email address.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "email": "<email>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "send_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No	Language of the conversation: en, ru or uk. The reply comes in it.	en
`name`	Yes	The sender’s name.
`email`	Yes	The sender’s email address. The author replies to it.
`message`	Yes	The message, in any language.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sent`	Yes
`message`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and non-idempotent, so the write/external nature is known. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: delivery to the author's inbox, email reply to the given address, and concrete rate limits (20/day across all agents, 3 per email address). It does not describe failure modes or what the response contains, but the output schema covers returns.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then constraints, then limits. Every clause carries actionable information with no filler.

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?

For a 4-parameter outbound-message tool with full schema coverage, annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, preconditions, confirmation workflow and rate limits. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 adds meaning the schema does not: the name and email must be the user's real ones and must never be fabricated, and the reply arrives at that address. The lang parameter's effect (reply language) is already in the schema.

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 and resource ("Send a message to Roman Kryvolapov, the author of this blog") and enumerates the legitimate purposes (question, suggestion, job/project offer). This clearly separates it from the read-only siblings fetch, get_page and search.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use ("Use it only when the user asked to contact the author"), preconditions (user's own name and email, never invent them), and a confirmation step ("show the user the text before sending"). No inference is required.

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

All Roman Kryvolapov Engineering Blog 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?