Send Message
send_messageAuthenticated tool to send message.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| type | Yes | ||
| appId | Yes | ||
| messageId | No | ||
| recipient | Yes | ||
| idempotencyKey | No |
Relin
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, etc.), and the description only adds 'Authenticated tool', which is not enough. The tool's side effects (e.g., message delivery) are not disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but lacks essential information. It is under-specified, not concise in terms of value-per-word.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how to send a message or what the result is.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter schema coverage is 0%, and the description provides no additional meaning for any of the 6 parameters, leaving the agent to guess their purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool sends a message, which is clear, but it adds little beyond the title and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'replay_message' or 'list_messages'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or when to avoid it. The agent receives no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between `list_messages`, `list_recent_events`, and `list_message_attempts`, and between `replay_event` and `replay_events`. However, the descriptions generally clarify differences.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming mostly follows a verb_noun pattern (create_, list_, get_, update_, delete_), with consistent snake_case. A few tools like `rotate_endpoint_secret` and `upsert_event_type` deviate but still use verb_noun structure.
Tool Count2/5
With 52 tools, the set is extremely large and may overwhelm agents. While the domain is complex, this many tools reduce coherence and make selection more difficult.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface is very comprehensive, covering CRUD for most resources, replay, retries, anomaly management, and webhook setup. Minor gaps exist (no delete for destinations, no update for sources), but core workflows are well-supported.