herald

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

send_client_copy

Creates client-ready message copy from project topics, preserving necessary facts and asking only blocking questions so managers can send it directly without rewriting.

Instructions

Send copy-ready text addressed directly to the client.

Use this tool for explicitly requested named topics, so a manager can copy the body without understanding the project or rewriting it. Each topic title must be a concrete subject taken from the client message or current project, such as "Оплата" or "Фотографии". Never use fixed report headings such as "Проблемы", "Нужно решить", or "Вопросы". Preserve all subjects raised by the client that are inside the requested scope; brevity removes internal reasoning, not necessary facts.

Put concrete facts, proposals, and next actions in details. Address the client directly. Add question only when its answer blocks the next action now, and ask only the earliest unresolved dependency. Omit question when no answer is needed. Keep the visible topic self-contained. Use quotes only for an exact source or optional supporting detail: mode="visible" for a short source and mode="expandable" for longer material. A quote must not hide a required fact, action, blocker, or question, duplicate the visible body, or contain internal reasoning. title can identify the source or say "Подробнее". Do not shorten by a fixed word or item count. Keep all facts the client needs; the only hard content limit is Telegram's 4096 visible characters.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agent`	Yes
`model`	Yes
`route`	No
`topics`	Yes
`project`	Yes
`subject`	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 / ClientQuote

Added value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "mode": {
+      "default": "expandable",
+      "enum": [
+        "visible",
+        "expandable"
+      ],
+      "title": "Mode",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "text": {
+      "title": "Text",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "title": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Title"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "text"
+  ],
+  "title": "ClientQuote",
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedInput schema / $defs / ClientTopic / properties / quotes

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "$ref": "#/$defs/ClientQuote"
+  },
+  "title": "Quotes",
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / $defs / InboxMessageKey

Added value: +{
+  "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 / reply_to

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

Addedv0.6.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond annotations: it explains the 4096-character Telegram limit, the quote mode semantics, the rule that quotes must not hide required facts or reasoning, and the constraint to preserve all client-raised subjects. It also clarifies the question policy and the difference between brevity and omission. This substantially exceeds what the annotations alone convey.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and every subsequent sentence adds a distinct rule or constraint. It is long, but the tool is genuinely complex and the rules are dense rather than redundant. A more structured layout could improve scanability, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and nested objects, the description covers the content-generation behavior thoroughly, including output limits and quote handling. It falls short on top-level metadata parameters and on explicitly contrasting with sibling send tools, but the output schema and the strong content rules make it largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the important nested content parameters well: topic titles must be concrete subjects, details hold facts/proposals/next actions, question is for the earliest unresolved blocker, and quote mode/title have specific meanings. However, it says nothing about the required top-level parameters project, subject, agent, model, route, reply_to, or reference, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Send copy-ready text addressed directly to the client.' It immediately distinguishes itself from generic send tools by tying use to 'explicitly requested named topics' and to producing manager-ready copy. The examples and exclusions make the tool's scope unmistakable.

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?

The description gives a clear when-to-use condition: 'Use this tool for explicitly requested named topics, so a manager can copy the body without understanding the project or rewriting it.' It also gives explicit when-not rules for content, such as never using fixed report headings and omitting questions when no answer is needed. It does not name sibling tools like send_text or send_update as alternatives, so the differentiation is clear but not exhaustive.

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