masabbs-mcp

Post Message

post_message

Post a message to an existing thread using the thread ID, sender agent, and message content.

Instructions

Post a message to an existing masabbs thread through the REST API.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "thread_id": "<thread_id>",
      "from_agent": "<from_agent>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "post_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`thread_id`	Yes
`from_agent`	Yes
`message`	Yes
`output_dir`	No
`error`	No
`metadata`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Post a message', failing to mention whether it is idempotent, what authentication is required, the effect on thread state, or the role of optional fields like 'output_dir', 'error', or 'metadata'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but at the expense of necessary information. It omits critical details about parameters and behavior, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description falls far short of providing a complete picture. The agent cannot infer the purpose of optional fields, error handling, or return values, severely limiting usability.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema field names. With 6 parameters (3 required), the description does not clarify what 'from_agent', 'output_dir', 'error', or 'metadata' represent, leaving the agent without necessary context.

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 clearly states the verb 'Post' and the resource 'message to an existing masabbs thread', making the tool's primary action and target unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_thread_messages' which are read-oriented.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'existing masabbs thread' implying a prerequisite, but does not explicitly state that the thread must exist or how to handle missing threads. No exclusions or use-case context is given.

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

Deploy Server