Ménage Parfait

Send a message to Ménage Parfait

send_message

Idempotent

Sends a written message to the Ménage Parfait team on behalf of the customer: a question, a special request, or a change or cancellation of an existing booking. The team replies by email to the customer. Returns a reference (MP-MSG-...). Plain text only, max 2000 characters and 3 links. Never include card or bank details.

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
`name`	Yes	Customer full name
`email`	Yes	Where the team should reply
`phone`	No	Optional, with country code if not French
`message`	Yes	The customer's message, in their words
`language`	No	Language of the reply	fr
`agent_name`	No	Name of the assistant/app sending the message
`booking_ref`	No	Booking reference, if the message is about an existing booking

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries a lighter burden. It still adds real value beyond them: the reply arrives by email to the customer, a reference in the MP-MSG-... format is returned, and there is a content policy (plain text, max 2000 characters, max 3 links, no card or bank details). It does not say how quickly the team replies or whether a message can fail to be delivered.

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?

Five short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and scope before the operational constraints. Each sentence contributes something an agent needs: purpose, reply channel, return reference, input limits, and a safety rule.

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?

For a seven-parameter outbound-message tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return reference, delivery mechanism and content rules, which is close to sufficient. It stops short of clarifying how this relates to reschedule_booking for booking changes, the one ambiguity an agent is likely to hit in practice.

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 seven parameters (including the language enum and the optional booking_ref) are already documented and the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning the schema cannot express: the '3 links' cap on the message body and the prohibition on card or bank details, both content rules an agent must apply when composing the input.

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 ('Sends') and resource ('a written message to the Ménage Parfait team on behalf of the customer') and enumerates the message categories in scope: question, special request, booking change or cancellation. An agent can distinguish this outbound-contact tool from direct-action siblings like create_booking or get_quote without opening any schema.

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 enumerated cases (question, special request, change or cancellation) give clear context for when to reach for this tool. However, it never names an alternative or an exclusion, so the overlap with the sibling reschedule_booking for booking changes is left for the agent to resolve on its own.

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

All Ménage Parfait 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?