Skip to main content
Glama
CronusL-1141

AI Team OS

by CronusL-1141
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

channel_send

Send a message to team, project, or global channels with @mention support for cross-team broadcasting. Route updates to correct recipients and track project unread status.

Instructions

Send a message to a channel.

Supports cross-team broadcasting and @mention semantics.

Channel formats:

  • "team:" — send to a specific team channel

  • "project:" — send to a project-wide channel

  • "global" — broadcast to all teams

收件人写法：mentions 里裸名与 "@名" 都算数，未读判定两种都认。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
senderNoSender identity, default "agent".agent
channelYesTarget channel (e.g. "team:backend", "project:abc123", "global").
messageYesMessage content.
mentionsNoList of mention tags, e.g. ["leader-cc"] or ["@leader-cc"].
project_idNo归属项目；留空按当前工作目录自动归属（与 task_memo / report 同一套模式）。归属为空的消息照发照存，但**不进任何项目的未读**—— 收件人不会被提示，只能主动读到。

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.12.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / mentions / description
      Previous value: -"List of @mention tags, e.g. [\"@agent-name\", \"@team-name\"]."New value: +"List of mention tags, e.g. [\"leader-cc\"] or [\"@leader-cc\"]."
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_id
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "description": "归属项目；留空按当前工作目录自动归属（与 task_memo / report\n同一套模式）。归属为空的消息照发照存，但**不进任何项目的未读**——\n收件人不会被提示，只能主动读到。",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv1.9.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and adds useful behavioral context: cross-team broadcasting and the rule that mentions accept both bare names and '@name' and that unread detection honors both. However, it omits auth/permission needs, persistence guarantees, and error behavior for a send operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and then structured as a compact format list. The trailing sentence switches languages (English then Chinese) which is slightly jarring, but every line carries information.

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?

Covers channel formats, mention semantics, and broadcast scope; an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Gaps remain around permissions and delivery/persistence behavior for a send tool with no annotations, but the essentials are present.

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 100% (baseline 3), and the description still adds value by explaining what each channel prefix means and clarifying the mentions equivalence rule (bare name vs '@name'), beyond the single schema examples.

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 and resource ('Send a message to a channel') and then enumerates the three channel target formats with what each means (team-specific, project-wide, global broadcast). An agent can distinguish this from channel_read/channel_mentions without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the purpose plus the channel-format list, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as meeting_send_message or channel_read for reading instead of sending. The agent must infer the context of use.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools