Skip to main content
Glama
arbengine

mailbox-mcp

by arbengine
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

send_facility_message

Send a message to the operator at your mailbox facility. Facility routing is automatic. Messages appear in the shared conversation visible to you, the renter, and the facility.

Instructions

Send a message to the operator at your mailbox facility. Facility routing is automatic. Messages appear in the shared conversation visible to you, the renter, and the facility. Optionally link the message to a specific package or action request for context.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesMessage text (1-5000 characters).
package_idNoOptional: link this message to a specific package for context.
action_request_idNoOptional: link this message to an action request for context.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYesSent facility message identifiers and body.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.3
    • removedInput schema / properties / facility_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "The facility to message. Get this from the get_mailbox response.",
-  "format": "uuid",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "facility_id",
-  "body"
-]New value: +[
+  "body"
+]
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the message lands in a shared conversation visible to the renter and facility, routing is automatic, and links are optional context. It doesn't disclose rate limits or delivery semantics, but the audience/visibility disclosure is the key thing an agent couldn't infer.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and recipient, then routing behavior, then the optional context. No filler, though the linking sentence slightly overlaps the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description supplies the audience/visibility and routing behavior needed to call this correctly; only explicit alternative-tool routing and delivery expectations are absent, which is a minor gap for a straightforward send tool.

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 100%, so all three parameters (body length range, package_id, action_request_id) are already documented. The description only restates the optional linking behavior, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send a message to the operator at your mailbox facility'), which is clearly distinct from physical-mail siblings like send_outbound_mail. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast against, but the recipient-scoped framing (facility operator) is unambiguous.

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?

It implies usage ('facility routing is automatic', optional package/action links) but never states when to use this versus send_outbound_mail or when to prefer get_facility_messages for reading. Context is suggested rather than spelled out; no exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools