Phorme Training

Send a 1:1 client a check-in or message

coach_client_post

Use this when a Phorme coach wants to send one of their 1:1 clients a check-in, a form note (optionally with a video link) or a message. It posts to the client's coach thread in the app as the coach and sends them a notification. Send the coach's own words; never write as the coach without their yes. Set confirmation to true only after the coach approved exactly this text.

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": {
      "brain_id": "<brain_id>",
      "client_id": "<client_id>",
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "text": "<text>",
      "confirmation": "<confirmation>"
    },
    "name": "coach_client_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes
`text`	Yes
`brain_id`	Yes	The brain id of the coach's own build, for example "cameron".
`client_id`	Yes	The client_id of one of the coach's 1:1 clients, from coach_clients.
`video_url`	No	An https link to a form video, for a form note.
`confirmation`	Yes	True only after the coach approved this text.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	No
`posted`	Yes
`brain_id`	No
`client_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the external side effect: the text is posted to the client's coach thread as the coach and triggers a notification to the client. It also states an authorship constraint ('Send the coach's own words; never write as the coach without their yes') and a sequencing rule for confirmation, which are behavioral facts no structured field carries.

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?

Three tight sentences: the trigger and capability come first, then the effect, then the two safety constraints. No sentence restates the tool name or the title, and nothing is padded.

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 five-required-parameter mutation with annotations and an output schema present, the definition covers trigger, effect, authorship rule, and the confirmation gate, so an agent can call it correctly. Residual gaps (return shape, failure modes, rate limits) are largely covered by the output schema, so the omission is minor.

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 67%, and the description usefully explains the enum values by mapping them to real actions (check-in, form note optionally carrying a video link, message) and clarifies what 'confirmation' attests to. It adds nothing about the 4000-character bound on text or the brain_id/client_id lookup path, but those are already documented in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ('send') plus resource ('check-in, form note, or message') and names the recipient class ('one of their 1:1 clients'). It distinguishes the tool from group-messaging siblings by scope ('1:1 clients') and from coach-side management tools by action, though it never names the nearest alternative (send_note_to_my_members) explicitly.

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?

Opens with an explicit when-to-use clause ('Use this when a Phorme coach wants to send...') and adds a hard usage gate for the confirmation flag. It does not state when NOT to use it or name a sibling alternative for group/non-1:1 messaging, so the routing signal is implied rather than spelled out.

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

All Phorme Training 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.