send_conversationSend a conversation message to one or more Canvas users by specifying recipient IDs, subject, and body.
Send a new conversation message to one or more recipients.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | The message body | |
| subject | Yes | The conversation subject line | |
| recipients | Yes | Array of recipient user IDs (as strings) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.18.11Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.18.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds little behavioral context beyond restating the send action. It does not mention side effects, recipient validation, irreversibility, delivery behavior, or failure modes, so it provides minimal value beyond the annotations.
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?
The description is a single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is not quite a 5 because it lacks any additional guiding context, but as a concise statement it is well structured.
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?
The tool is simple and the schema fully documents all three required parameters, so an agent can likely form a valid call. However, the description omits usage guidance and behavioral consequences, leaving gaps around when to choose this tool over conversation-read siblings and what sending implies.
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 100%, so recipients, subject, and body are already documented. The description adds one meaningful detail beyond the schema: 'one or more recipients', which clarifies that the recipients array must not be empty even though the schema does not specify a minItems constraint.
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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and a specific resource ('new conversation message') and clarifies the recipient scope. It does not explicitly contrast sibling tools, but the word 'new' helps distinguish this creation action from read-style siblings like get_conversation and list_conversations.
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?
The intended use is implied: use this tool when a new conversation message should be sent to one or more recipients. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives such as replying to an existing conversation or reading conversations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.