Send a text message as an Instagram DM to a chat alias, or omit the alias to reach the only subscribed target.
Send a text message. Address by alias via to, or omit it for the sole target.
Args: text: Message text. to: Chat alias (e.g. "alex"). Omit for the sole subscribed target.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| text | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the default-target behavior when `to` is omitted, but says nothing about what happens with multiple subscribed targets, delivery semantics, or failure modes 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with the one-line purpose followed by a compact args block; every line earns its place. Minor redundancy with the schema's own field names, but no padding.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the addressing model is covered. However, the description introduces the 'sole target' concept without saying what occurs when the target is not sole, which is the key ambiguity an agent would hit.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the non-obvious parameter: `to` is explained as a chat alias with an example and a default/omit semantic. `text` is only restated as 'Message text', which is trivial but leaves no real gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Send a text message'), which implicitly separates it from send_file/send_audio/send_typing among the siblings. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the 'text message' scope is unambiguous.
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?
The addressing rule ('Address by alias via `to`, or omit it for the sole target') gives real conditional guidance for how to call it, but there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over send_file/send_audio, nor any exclusion or prerequisite. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.