crowntowncompost-mcp

Send a message to customer support

crowntown_contact_support

Destructive

Send a message to Crown Town Compost customer support and review the exact reply-to details before confirming delivery.

Instructions

Send a message to Crown Town Compost customer support. The reply-to email and phone default to the ones the support form pre-fills from your account, and the preview shows the exact values that will be sent. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE).

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": {
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "crowntown_contact_support"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	No	Reply-to email (defaults to the account email if omitted).
`phone`	No	Contact phone (optional).
`message`	Yes	The message to send to support.
`confirmToken`	No	ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.0Sep 24, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / confirm

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken

Added value: +{
+  "description": "ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 \"confirmation-required\" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.0Sep 17, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.1Sep 10, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / email / pattern

Previous value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"

First observedv0.2.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by detailing the confirmation workflow, account-defaulted reply-to fields, preview behavior, and the two-step confirmToken fallback. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs beyond readOnlyHint/destructiveHint.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three well-structured sentences with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place by explaining the non-obvious confirmation flow. No filler or redundant restatement.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema and a non-trivial confirmation workflow, the description explains both supported paths: native confirmation prompts and the fallback confirmToken sequence. It covers defaults, previews, and the repeat call necessary to proceed, so an agent has what it needs to call the tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds valuable meaning beyond that: defaulting behavior for email and phone, preview semantics, and strict rules for confirmToken usage. This meaningfully supplements 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Send a message to Crown Town Compost customer support.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, none of which are message-sending tools. The title and description align without redundancy.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever a message needs to be sent to customer support. It also gives practical usage flow with the confirmation requirement. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but no sibling tool is a viable alternative for this action.

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

Deploy Server