Sends a direct message to a kChat user by username to enable private one-to-one communication.
Send a direct message to a kChat user by username
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The message text to send | |
| username | Yes | The username of the user to send the message to |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about permissions, rate limits, failure modes for unknown usernames, or what the call returns on success. For a write/send operation with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and target are established immediately. It is efficient but arguably too terse given what it omits.
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 simple two-parameter tool with fully covered schema and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to select and invoke it. It still leaves the agent guessing about delivery confirmation, error behavior, and coexistence with kchat_post_message.
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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'by username' merely restates the schema and adds no format, casing, or lookup semantics beyond it.
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?
Specific verb (send) plus resource (direct message) plus targeting mechanism (by username). The word 'direct' implicitly separates it from kchat_post_message, but the description never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the DM path versus channel posting, but the description states no when-to-use conditions, no prerequisites (e.g. must the user exist, must you share a workspace), and no explicit alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.