Skip to main content
Glama

send_update

Turn raw project details into a concise client-ready update, highlighting only blockers, decisions, and next actions that need attention.

Instructions

Send a concise, client-ready structured update.

brief is the default. Write for a recipient who has not followed the project: put the concrete subject and current result in one self-contained summary using plain everyday language. Replace jargon and internal names with their practical meaning. Add only blockers, decisions, questions, or the next action needed now; completed is omitted when the summary already says what was done. Keep every field inside the exact subject requested by the user; never append unrelated project health. Include a client question only if the answer is not already available, the recipient controls it, and progress on the subject stops without it now. Build the dependency chain internally and ask only the first unresolved dependency, not questions about later steps. Omit the question section when nothing passes this test. Address the recipient directly. For client copy, put a required choice in client_questions, not the internal decisions_needed section. Do not include chronology, review or test logs, implementation details, tool names, or internal reasoning unless they change a client decision, risk, cost, or deadline. The server enforces preset-specific length and item limits and renders safe Telegram HTML.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentYes
modelYes
routeNo
presetNobrief
projectYes
subjectYes
summaryYes
blockersNo
completedNo
referenceNo
next_stepsNo
client_questionsNo
decisions_neededNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Install Server

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description mentions server enforcement of length and item limits and safe Telegram HTML rendering, adding some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose side effects like message delivery guarantees, authentication requirements, or error handling. Annotations already set readOnly=false, so the description adds moderate value but is not comprehensive.

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

Conciseness1/5

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

The description is excessively long and repetitive, with many redundant instructions (e.g., multiple statements about omitting completed items, including only relevant questions). It reads more like a style guide than a tool description, lacking brevity and clear structure.

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 has 13 parameters and no schema description coverage, yet the description does not adequately explain the tool's overall purpose, parameter roles, return value, or selection criteria. It gives partial guidance on content style but misses essential context for effective use.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only indirectly references a few parameters like client_questions and decisions_needed to distinguish their use. It does not systematically explain the meaning or purpose of most parameters (e.g., agent, model, project, summary). The guidance is fragmented and not parameter-focused.

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 'Send a concise, client-ready structured update.' which clearly indicates the action (send) and resource (update). It differentiates from siblings like send_text or notify_completion by emphasizing 'structured' and 'client-ready', making the purpose reasonably clear.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies client-facing updates but lacks direct guidance on selection relative to send_text or send_client_copy. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' is provided.

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

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ZenonEl/herald'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server