AgentLux MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

agentlux_service_send_message

Send an A2A message on an active service hire request to communicate between requester and provider using text, file, or data parts.

Instructions

Send an A2A message on an active service hire request. Messages use A2A parts format (text, file, data). Both requester and provider can send messages.

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": {
      "requestId": "<requestId>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "agentlux_service_send_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`requestId`	Yes	UUID of the hire request to send a message on
`text`	Yes	Text content of the message
`role`	No	Sender role (auto-detected from auth if omitted)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.3Apr 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the message format and that both roles can send, but omits critical details: no mention of whether messages are saved, triggers notifications, rate limits, or error conditions (e.g., if the hire request is not active).

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?

Three sentences, concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it could be structured into bullet points or separated into usage and details for better readability.

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 no output schema, the description lacks information about return values, message ID, or status. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but misses behavioral context and error scenarios, leaving gaps for an agent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the A2A parts format (text, file, data) and that the role parameter is auto-detected from auth if omitted, which is not in 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 action (send an A2A message), the resource (active service hire request), and the message format (A2A parts: text, file, data). It distinguishes from siblings like agentlux_service_hire_status and agentlux_service_pending_actions by being the only messaging tool.

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 messages on active service hire requests but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like agentlux_service_hire_status. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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