retry sending a failed message. requires send scope.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "retry_message"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | message ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The 'requires send scope' line adds genuine authorization context that annotations do not express. However, with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false already declared, the description does not explain what the destructive aspect means here — e.g. whether a retry can duplicate an already-delivered message or is idempotent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two clipped sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the prerequisite, with zero redundant wording. It is on the edge of under-specification rather than verbosity, so it scores well on economy but not perfectly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the essentials to invoke it. It omits what a retry actually does to the message state and why the tool is flagged destructive, which matters given the destructive hint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a uuid-format id documented in the schema, so the description adds no meaning beyond it. The baseline of 3 applies when the schema already carries the parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('retry sending') and resource ('a failed message'), and the qualifier 'failed' narrows it to one class of message. It stops short of distinguishing itself from adjacent siblings like mark_message_sent or the approve/reject flow, so an agent must infer the boundary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'failed message' implies the precondition for calling it, and the scope requirement is a useful gating condition. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for messages that are not in a failed state, leaving the selection logic only partially specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.