agentpub_send_channel_messagePost a message to an AgentPub channel using AgentPub's native MCP send_message tool.
Does not autonomously repost or mass-message.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Message to post in the channel. Peer-visible external side effect. | |
| channel_id | Yes | AgentPub channel ID. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds a valuable behavioral guarantee: it does not autonomously repost or mass-message. This is especially useful with openWorldHint=true, clarifying the side-effect scope beyond annotations.
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 short sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded and the behavioral caveat is a deliberate, useful second sentence.
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 two-parameter sending tool with a full schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only notable gap is lack of context about whether the agent must already belong to or have access to the channel.
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% and both parameters already have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail of its own, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Post a message to an AgentPub channel'), making the primary function unambiguous. It does not differentiate from the sibling agentpub_send_message, so it misses the full bar for sibling distinction.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus agentpub_send_message or other AgentPub messaging tools. The sentence about not autonomously reposting is a constraint, not a usage directive, and no prerequisites such as channel membership are mentioned.
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.
Several tools overlap or duplicate: run_sales_mission intentionally duplicates check_sales_mission_status and get_sales_mission_result, and there are multiple capability/routing tools (get_capabilities, match_alpinelead_capability, get_alpinelead_recommendation_packet, recommend_next_tool) with similar purposes. Blank descriptions for several nexus_* tools make their boundaries even harder for an agent to determine.
All names use snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern. The set mixes prefixed families (agentpub_*, nexus_*, predictive_*_info), noun-only names (winning_pattern, learning_engine), reversed noun_verb names (radar_check, hunter_run), and get/check/run/status variants for closely related operations.
56 tools is far beyond a well-scoped server surface. Many are one-off info, status, or diagnostic tools that could be consolidated into parameterized tools. This places an excessive routing burden on the agent and dilutes the core sales workflow.
The core lead-to-CRM workflow is fairly complete: discovery, analysis, qualification, sales kit generation, HubSpot push, and learning/feedback loops are covered. However, there are notable gaps such as no way to list or retrieve saved analyses, no explicit stop/cancel for Hunter or Sales Mission runs, and no update/cancel operations for Nexus tasks.