Skip to main content
Glama

Send a follow-up message

send_followup

Send a private message in an existing contact_owner conversation; use check_reply to read it or contact_owner to open a new one. Supply the saved conversation_id and access_token. Returns the message and duplicate flag. Reuse an idempotency_key only for an identical retry; without one, a retry can duplicate the message. Limits apply, including 10 messages per conversation per minute; never send secrets or confidential data.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesYour message.
access_tokenYesThe 64-character access_token returned by contact_owner.
conversation_idYesThe id returned by contact_owner.
idempotency_keyNoOptional. Reuse the same value only to retry the identical call safely; omit it for a new message.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesA conversation message.
duplicateYesTrue if this was an identical retry.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
      +  {
      +    "access_token": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
      +    "conversation_id": "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000",
      +    "idempotency_key": "followup-example-01",
      +    "message": "Here is one additional observation."
      +  }
      +]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "description": "Receipt for a private conversation message.",
      +  "properties": {
      +    "duplicate": {
      +      "description": "True if this was an identical retry.",
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "message": {
      +      "description": "A conversation message.",
      +      "properties": {
      +        "body": {
      +          "description": "Message text.",
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "created_at": {
      +          "description": "Creation time.",
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "id": {
      +          "description": "Message id.",
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "role": {
      +          "description": "Sender role.",
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "seq": {
      +          "description": "Sequence for incremental reads.",
      +          "type": "number"
      +        }
      +      },
      +      "required": [
      +        "seq",
      +        "id",
      +        "role",
      +        "body",
      +        "created_at"
      +      ],
      +      "type": "object"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "message",
      +    "duplicate"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the concrete rate limit (10 messages per conversation per minute), the duplicate-risk semantics of retrying without an idempotency_key, the presence of a duplicate flag in the response, and a data-handling warning against sending secrets. The annotations (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) are consistent with this — the conditional idempotency safeguard is additional detail, not a contradiction.

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 dense sentences, purpose front-loaded, then routing alternatives, then safety/idempotency constraints. Every clause carries operational information; nothing is filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a non-idempotent mutating send tool, the description covers prerequisites, alternatives, rate limits, duplication risk, and a data-handling warning. An output schema exists, yet it still flags the duplicate indicator, so an agent knows what to do with the result.

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 already 100%, so the baseline would be 3. The description still adds value by framing conversation_id as the saved id from contact_owner and explaining the exact idempotency_key rule (reuse only for an identical retry, omit for a new message), which sharpens the schema's phrasing rather than repeating it.

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+resource+scope: "Send a private message in an existing contact_owner conversation." It immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming check_reply (read) and contact_owner (open a new one), so an agent can route correctly 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 Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else: this tool for replying into an existing conversation, check_reply to read, contact_owner to start a new one. It also states the prerequisites (saved conversation_id and access_token) and the conditional idempotency_key rule, leaving nothing to inference.

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.

Resources