herald

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

notify_completion

Send a completion notice only when requested, using project writing rules; preserve the supplied summary and append the provenance signature for Telegram delivery.

Instructions

Send a completion notice only when the user requested notification.

Call get_writing_rules(project) before composing the summary. HTML is the default; pass raw Telegram tags. The tool preserves the supplied summary without adding a generic heading and appends the provenance signature.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`agent`	Yes
`model`	Yes
`route`	No
`format`	No	html
`preset`	No	brief
`project`	Yes
`subject`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`reply_to`	No
`reference`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.8.0Sep 25, 2026

addedInput schema / $defs

Added value: +{
+  "InboxMessageKey": {
+    "properties": {
+      "chat_id": {
+        "title": "Chat Id",
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "message_id": {
+        "title": "Message Id",
+        "type": "integer"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "chat_id",
+      "message_id"
+    ],
+    "title": "InboxMessageKey",
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+}

addedInput schema / properties / format / default
```
Added value: +"html"
```

addedInput schema / properties / reply_to

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "$ref": "#/$defs/InboxMessageKey"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "summary",
-  "project",
-  "subject",
-  "agent",
-  "model",
-  "format"
-]New value: +[
+  "summary",
+  "project",
+  "subject",
+  "agent",
+  "model"
+]

First observedv0.3.0Aug 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it preserves the supplied summary, does not add a generic heading, appends a provenance signature, and defaults to HTML with raw Telegram tags. It does not contradict the annotations and elaborates on the actual transformation behavior.

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 dense sentences front-load the purpose, then deliver a prerequisite, formatting behavior, and transformation guarantees. There is no filler; every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool is complex with 10 parameters and two enums, and the description covers only a small subset of them. It provides good workflow context but is not complete enough for an agent to correctly populate the optional fields or understand the full sending semantics.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides some meaning for 'summary' (preserved as supplied), 'project' (used with get_writing_rules), and 'format' (HTML default), but leaves most parameters—agent, model, subject, preset, route, reply_to, reference—unexplained.

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 a specific action ('send a completion notice') and a resource/context ('when the user requested notification'). It is clearly not a tautology and conveys the tool's distinct niche among siblings, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives an explicit usage condition ('only when the user requested notification') and a clear prerequisite ('Call get_writing_rules(project) before composing the summary'). It does not discuss alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling send tools, but the stated condition provides meaningful selection guidance.

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