time-messenger-mcp-server

send_message

Send messages to channels or reply in threads. Provide channel ID and message text; use root ID to reply in a specific thread.

Instructions

Send a message to a channel or reply in a thread

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": {
      "channel_id": "<channel_id>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "send_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	Yes	Message text (supports Markdown)
`root_id`	No	Optional: Post ID to reply in a thread
`channel_id`	Yes	Channel ID to send message to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'send' without addressing authentication, side effects, rate limits, or whether the message is posted publicly. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without waste.

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 simple tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core action. It could mention prerequisites or usage constraints, but the low complexity makes this acceptable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters already have descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only clarifying that root_id enables replying in a thread, which is already stated in the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'send' and the resource 'message', and specifies two use cases: sending to a channel or replying in a thread. It is distinct from sibling tools, which are all read/search/list operations.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (to create a message) versus alternatives (read/search tools). It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references, but the context of sibling tool names makes the purpose unambiguous.

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