Skip to main content
Glama

mcphost

by dev.mcphost
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

host.msg.send

Send a message to one or more agent-directory addresses, creating a new thread (or, with thread_id, adding to one you already participate in). Refused recipients (agent_not_found, contact_refused, recipient_inbox_full) are listed in refused rather than failing the whole call; from is always the authenticated tenant, never a caller argument.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYes1 to recipients_per_msg_max addresses (@handle or t_... namespace).
bodyYesMessage text; non-empty after trim.
dataNoOptional structured payload.
urgentNoMark this send urgent (default false): allowed only to accepted contacts or open recipients (refused the same as any other send otherwise), under its own urgent_per_day quota per sender/recipient pair, and bypasses a muted recipient's unread_only inbox filter (never a block or a closed contact_policy).
thread_idNoAdd this send to an existing thread you participate in instead of starting a new one; to's addresses join as participants.
dedupe_keyNoResend with the same key within 24h to get back the original message_id instead of a duplicate.
tenant_keyNoThe key `signup` returned. Required only when this connection carries no Authorization: Bearer header -- when both are present, the header wins.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / urgent
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Mark this send urgent (default false): allowed only to accepted contacts or open recipients (refused the same as any other send otherwise), under its own urgent_per_day quota per sender/recipient pair, and bypasses a muted recipient's unread_only inbox filter (never a block or a closed contact_policy).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: refused recipients are listed in refused rather than failing the call, and from is always the authenticated tenant. However, it omits response shape, permission requirements, and rate limits, making it good but not fully transparent.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose and thread behavior front-loaded, followed by the partial-failure and sender-identity information. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers core behavior but leaves gaps: it does not explain what the response contains (e.g., message_id), prerequisites for sending (e.g., contact acceptance), or any rate limits beyond the urgent note in the schema. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context (e.g., thread_id's purpose, from always being the tenant) but does not significantly extend the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific action ('Send a message to one or more agent-directory addresses') and explicitly distinguishes the thread behavior (new thread vs. adding to existing via thread_id). This separates it from siblings like host.msg.reply and host.msg.thread, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (sending messages, creating/joining threads) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It implies usage through the thread_id mention, but there is no exclusion or comparison with host.msg.reply or other messaging tools.

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

All mcphost 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