Coordinate project agents by sending, listing, and acknowledging durable messages to manage tasks and updates.
Send, list, or acknowledge durable messages between project agents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| taskId | No | ||
| replyTo | No | ||
| messageId | No | ||
| operation | Yes | ||
| toAgentId | No | ||
| fromAgentId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Durable' is a useful hint about persistence, but nothing is said about whether acknowledge is idempotent, whether delivery is guaranteed, permission requirements, or what happens to a message after acknowledgement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence covering the operations and the resource, with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the gaps seen in other dimensions rather than being purely a virtue.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin for the tool's complexity. An agent cannot tell from it which parameters are required for which operation (e.g., messageId for acknowledge, replyTo/body for reply).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the schema documents none of them and the description must compensate. The description only echoes the operation values (send/list/acknowledge) and says nothing about body, type, taskId, replyTo, messageId, toAgentId, or fromAgentId, leaving most parameters unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb set (send/list/acknowledge) and a specific resource (durable messages between project agents), and the three verbs map cleanly onto the operation enum. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from siblings like review_request or task_manage, which also handle agent-to-agent coordination.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as review_request, nor on when to pick send vs. list vs. acknowledge. Usage is only implied by the operation names, leaving the agent to infer routing conditions from the enum alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.