Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

honeybook-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

send_message

Destructive

Send a message to your vendor and workspace via HoneyBook, with email delivery and reply-in-thread support. Confirmation required before sending; check list_messages if status shows pending.

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: the message may still be delivered, so check list_messages before resending.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesMessage text. Plain text is sent as-is (line breaks preserved); HTML is passed through.
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. 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"
+}
  2. 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"
  3. Addedv0.9.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say destructive and non-idempotent; the description goes far beyond by disclosing that it emails every recipient, requires user confirmation first, may need a two-step confirmToken flow, and can return pending with a task_id while delivery may still occur. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: core action, recipient/email behavior, reply handling, confirmation flow, and async pending caveat. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 complex send tool with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation flow, pending results, task_id, and the safe behavior to avoid duplicate sends. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret ambiguous outcomes.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: body plain-text/HTML handling, inherited subject on replies, confirmToken's strict lifecycle, and origin being optional when only one session is active.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: send a message to the vendor and workspace members through the HoneyBook portal. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling read/mark tools and explains the reply behavior via reply_to_message_id.

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?

Gives clear context for when to send a message and how to reply in-thread, and warns users to check list_messages before resending after a pending result. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but no competing send tool exists among the siblings.

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