Skip to main content
Glama

x_api_send_chat_message

Post a chat message to a user through the X API. Use this tool when you need to send a direct message, with authentication scopes and tenant context applied.

Instructions

Send Chat Message. Use when: Send Chat Message. Do not use when: a more specific auth/configuration tool is required before the API call or you are only exploring; prefer x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion first. Risk: mutating, high-risk. Required permissions and prerequisites: OAuth 2 user token with scopes dm.write, tweet.read, users.read; OAuth 1a user token Environment-selection behavior: scopeTenantId plus exactly one of scopeUserId or scopeAccountId choose the Vault/Postgres tenant principal used for auth resolution. credentialKey selects a non-default stored credential profile when present. Parameter formats and constraints: id (path, unknown, required); body is used for the documented request payload. Expected response shape: { ok, status, data: { method, path, url, status, contentType, authType, data } } Common failure conditions: missing scoped credentials in Vault, missing required API parameters, X API auth failures, rate limits, or unsupported multipart/body shape. Recommended prerequisite and follow-up tools: x_connection_info, x_schema_discovery, x_auth_upsert_principal_credentials, x_api_request. Safety warnings: This mutates X state. Validate scope, payload, and authorizationKey before use. Example: {"name":"x_api_send_chat_message","arguments":{"scopeTenantId":"default","scopeUserId":"default","id":"","body":{}}}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
bodyNo
scopeUserIdNo
credentialKeyNo
scopeTenantIdNo
scopeAccountIdNo
authorizationKeyNo
preferredAuthTypeNo
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers extensively: it discloses mutating/high-risk nature, required OAuth scopes, environment-selection behavior, expected response shape, common failure conditions, and explicit safety warnings. This goes far beyond the schema and provides the agent with crucial behavioral context.

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?

The description is well-structured with labeled sections (Risk, Permissions, Environment, Parameters, Response, Failures, Recommended Tools, Safety, Example), making it scannable. It is fairly long but each section earns its place. Minor redundancy exists in the opening 'Send Chat Message' and the tautological 'Use when' line.

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 tool with 8 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably comprehensive: it covers response shape, failure modes, prerequisites, environment behavior, and gives an example. The only gap is incomplete parameter semantics for all fields, which prevents a perfect score.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains id and body, and clarifies scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId/credentialKey through environment-selection behavior, plus authorizationKey in safety warnings. However, preferredAuthType is never mentioned, and 'body is used for the documented request payload' is vague. Partial coverage only.

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 opens with 'Send Chat Message', a clear verb+resource statement that immediately distinguishes this tool from sibling chat tools like x_api_send_chat_typing_indicator or x_api_create_chat_conversation. The tool's purpose is unmistakable despite the tautological 'Use when: Send Chat Message' line.

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?

The description provides some guidance: 'Do not use when' lists exploration/configuration contexts and suggests x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion. It also lists recommended prerequisite/follow-up tools. However, the 'Use when' is purely tautological and does not clarify when to choose this over other messaging tools such as x_api_create_direct_messages_conversation.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/LesterAJohn/X-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server