Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
moamcp

moamcp

by Yorha9e
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

moa_tower_send

Deliver inbox messages to any roster agent, the tower, or broadcast to all. Returns the message board key after enforcing a 96KB body limit.

Instructions

Deliver an inbox message to a roster agent, the tower, or "all" (broadcast). Self-send is forbidden; the body is capped at 96KB (board ceiling) — split larger content into multiple messages. Returns the message board key.

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": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>",
      "caller_agent_id": "<caller_agent_id>",
      "to": "<to>",
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "moa_tower_send"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesRecipient: a roster agent name, "tower", or "all" (broadcast)
bodyYesFull message body (markdown), ≤ 96KB
scopeNoOptional scope tag (e.g. the mission id)
actionNoOptional action tag for machine routing
subjectYesOne-line subject; keep it greppable
workspaceYesThe absolute repo root (main checkout) this tower namespace anchors to. Required on every tower tool — the server cwd is never used as a fallback.
consent_refNoOptional reference to a consent/approval record this message relies on
caller_agent_idYesYour engine agent id. The tower tools resolve it against the boot-registered roster (the booted tower, or a spawned worker/reviewer).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.13.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses meaningful behavioral rules: self-send is forbidden, body has a 96KB ceiling, and it returns the message board key. It doesn't cover failure modes or permissions, but the most important constraints are clearly stated.

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 exactly two sentences, starts with the action, and includes only the most essential details. No redundancy or 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?

The description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose, constraints, and return value, which is adequate for a message-sending tool without an output schema. It would benefit from an explicit note on when to prefer this over the handoff or board write tools, but the core usage context is present.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by highlighting the self-send restriction (a cross-parameter constraint between 'to' and 'caller_agent_id') and by recommending message splitting, which goes beyond the schema.

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 tool delivers inbox messages and specifies the three recipient types (roster agent, tower, 'all' broadcast). It also mentions key constraints like self-send prohibition and the 96KB body cap, distinguishing it from board and handoff tools.

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 implies usage for sending inbox messages and gives practical advice to split large content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling tools like moa_handoff_send or moa_board_write.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools