herald

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

send_update

Send structured internal updates to Telegram topics, formatting summary and list fields as HTML within preset-specific limits.

Instructions

Send an explicitly requested structured internal update.

Call get_writing_rules(project) for the current writing style. The server renders summary and nonempty list fields as escaped Telegram HTML. Fields must remain within preset-specific character and item limits. Use send_text for free-form messages without those field limits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`agent`	Yes
`model`	Yes
`route`	No
`preset`	No	brief
`project`	Yes
`subject`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`blockers`	No
`reply_to`	No
`completed`	No
`reference`	No
`next_steps`	No
`client_questions`	No
`decisions_needed`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 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 / reply_to

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

First observedv0.3.0Aug 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict these. It adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that the server renders summary and nonempty list fields as escaped Telegram HTML, and that fields must respect preset-specific limits. This goes beyond what the annotations provide, though it doesn't discuss all potential side effects or error handling.

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 description is concise—three sentences plus a prerequisite call—and front-loads the primary purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, prerequisite, rendering behavior/limits, and alternative. It is not verbose and avoids repetition, though it could benefit from slightly clearer separation of sections.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, 5 required) and the lack of schema descriptions, the description covers key operational aspects (prerequisite call, HTML rendering, limits, alternative) but omits details about individual parameters, expected outcomes, and error conditions. The presence of an output schema (though not shown) reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still leaves gaps in parameter semantics and edge cases.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. However, the description only offers general guidance (e.g., 'summary and nonempty list fields' and 'preset-specific limits') without explaining individual parameters like project, subject, agent, model, route, preset, or reply_to. While parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, the description does not provide the depth needed to fully understand each field's meaning or constraints.

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's purpose: 'Send an explicitly requested structured internal update.' It uses a specific verb (send) and a resource (structured internal update), and explicitly contrasts with send_text for free-form messages, distinguishing it from that sibling. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides clear guidance on prerequisites ('Call get_writing_rules(project) for the current writing style') and explicitly names an alternative tool ('Use send_text for free-form messages without those field limits'). It does not cover all sibling tools, but the primary distinction is made, which is sufficient for an agent to choose correctly.

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