okto-nexus

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

message_create

Send a message to one or many agent inboxes at once. It persists the message, routes it by target rules, and confirms delivery with recipients and delivered_count.

Instructions

Persist a message and fan it out to recipient inboxes; emit message.created. The response confirms delivery (recipients + delivered_count). Full docs: okto-nexus://reference/tool-docs/messages.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	Message body (inline text). For large content, attach an artifact and keep body a short pointer.
`target`	No	Routing target as a raw JSON object (optional; omit = broadcast to present agents). strategy one of: direct {"strategy":"direct","agent_id":"<id>"}; capability {"strategy":"capability","capability":"<cap>"}; role {"strategy":"role","role":"<role>"}; tag {"strategy":"tag","selector":{"<key>":["<value>",...]}} (flat: AND across keys, OR within values) or rich [{"key":"<k>","operator":"In\|NotIn\|Exists\|DoesNotExist","values":["<v>",...]}] (ANDed; CAUTION: NotIn/DoesNotExist also match agents MISSING the key); broadcast {"strategy":"broadcast"}; mixed {"strategy":"mixed","rules":[<sub-target>,...]}. Hierarchy/catalog rules, examples, edge-cases: okto-nexus://reference/target-grammar.
`subject`	Yes	Short message subject/title (one line).
`trace_id`	No	Trajectory trace_id to stamp on this message (optional; non-empty string, max 128 chars). Needs the feature_trace flag ON, else accepted and ignored; omitted = inherit the reply parent's trace, or generate one.
`artifacts`	No	List of artifact_id strings to attach (optional; at most 20, no exact duplicates; reference large content instead of inlining it in body).
`channel_id`	No	Channel_id to post into (optional; omit = no channel). Organizational label only; does NOT decide recipients (the target does).
`project_root`	Yes	Absolute path to the project (defines the workspace scope).
`from_agent_id`	Yes	Your agent_id (the sender); recorded as the author - recipients reply by targeting it.
`session_secret`	No	session_secret from session_open for from_session_id (optional in open mode but VALIDATED if supplied; REQUIRED in strict mode).
`from_session_id`	No	Your session_id from session_open (optional in trust_mode=open; REQUIRED with session_secret in trust_mode=strict).
`parent_message_id`	No	Message_id this is a reply to, to thread the conversation (optional).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.10Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well on side effects: it discloses persistence, fan-out to recipient inboxes, emission of a message.created event, and that the response confirms delivery with recipients + delivered_count. It omits auth/trust-mode requirements and any failure/partial-delivery semantics, so it falls short of 5.

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 tight clauses: the core action and side effect are front-loaded, the response contract follows, and the docs pointer is last. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the schema richly covers routing, session, and artifact semantics. For an 11-parameter tool the description is somewhat thin on auth/trust-mode context, but the docs reference plus the schema make it usable end-to-end.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters, including the complex target routing grammar. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 for full-coverage schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states specific verbs and a resource ('persist a message and fan it out to recipient inboxes; emit message.created'), so an agent immediately knows this is the write/send path. It does not explicitly name read siblings (message_get, message_list, message_wait) to differentiate, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The description explains the mechanics of sending but never states the conditions under which an agent should call message_create rather than inbox_pull, message_status, or channel tools; it only points to external docs.

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