RustChain + BoTTube MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Beacon Send Message

beacon_send_message

Send a message to another agent through a relay token, specifying sender and recipient IDs, with optional message types like requests, bounties, or emergencies.

Instructions

Send a message to another agent via Beacon relay.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	No	Envelope type — "want" (request service), "bounty" (post job), "accord" (propose agreement), "pushback" (disagree/reject), "hello" (introduction), "mayday" (emergency)	want
`content`	Yes	Message content
`to_agent`	Yes	Recipient agent ID
`from_agent`	Yes	Your agent ID
`relay_token`	Yes	Your relay token (from beacon_register)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.4.0Sep 22, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a message is sent; it does not mention delivery guarantees, persistence, acknowledgments, or the role of the relay envelope kind. This is thin for a side-effecting operation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and object. There is no filler, restatement of the title, or unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The schema covers all parameters and an output schema exists, so the structural information needed to invoke the tool is largely present. However, the description omits usage context and side-effect expectations for a messaging tool, and there are no annotations to fill that gap. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 parameters are already fully documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context, such as how content is formatted or how relay_token is obtained, but it is not required to compensate for missing schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Send a message') and the resource ('another agent via Beacon relay'), avoiding tautology. It is specific enough to convey the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the similar-sounding beacon_chat sibling.

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 guidance on when to use beacon_send_message versus beacon_chat or other messaging/relay tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are mentioned, so an agent must infer selection context from sibling names alone.

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