Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

honeybook-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

send_message

Destructive

Send a message to a vendor and workspace members through the HoneyBook portal; reply in-thread by passing a message ID, with a confirmation preview before sending.

Instructions

Send a message to the vendor (and the other members of the workspace) through the HoneyBook portal, exactly as the Activity tab composer does. HoneyBook emails it to every recipient. Pass reply_to_message_id to reply in-thread (the subject is inherited). 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). If HoneyBook has not finished sending within about a minute the result has status "pending" and a task_id; if it did not answer the send request at all the status is "unknown". Either way the message may still be delivered, so check list_messages before resending.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesMessage text. Plain text is sent as-is (line breaks preserved). Simple HTML formatting (p, br, b, i, a href, lists, tables) is kept; other tags are shown as text and attributes other than an http(s)/mailto link are dropped.
originNoPortal origin (e.g. https://<vendor>.hbportal.co). Optional when only one session is active.
subjectNoRequired for a new message; optional on a reply.
confirmTokenNoONLY 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.
workspace_idYesThe workspace _id (from list_projects, or .workspace._id on any workspace_file).
reply_to_message_idNoA message _id from list_messages to reply to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.7
    • changedInput schema / properties / body / description
      Previous value: -"Message text. Plain text is sent as-is (line breaks preserved); HTML is passed through."New value: +"Message text. Plain text is sent as-is (line breaks preserved). Simple HTML formatting (p, br, b, i, a href, lists, tables) is kept; other tags are shown as text and attributes other than an http(s)/mailto link are dropped."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to actually send. Without it the tool returns a preview of what would go out.",
-  "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"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  4. Addedv0.9.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it as destructive, non-idempotent and open-world, and the description goes well beyond that: it discloses the two-step confirmation fallback, the pending/task_id and unknown outcomes, and the fact that a message may still be delivered even when send status is uncertain. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Dense and front-loaded — the purpose and audience come first, then confirmation mechanics, then failure modes. It is longer than average but nearly every clause carries operational information an agent needs; only the parenthetical about MCP_CONFIRM_MODE could be trimmed.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the response categories (confirmation-required preview with confirmToken, pending with task_id, unknown) and the retry guidance. Nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: reply_to_message_id inherits the subject, confirmToken is phase-2-only and must never be invented or reused, and the call must repeat with identical arguments.

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 (Send), resource (a message), audience (the vendor and other workspace members), and channel (HoneyBook portal / Activity composer). It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like list_messages or get_message.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It covers when this tool applies, how the confirmation requirement must be satisfied in each client mode, that a repeat call with confirmToken is required, and how to recover from uncertain delivery ('check list_messages before resending'). Explicit behavioral routing rather than implied usage.

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