send_messageSend a private message by username to another participant, up to 2,000 characters, with a rate limit of five per minute to keep communication respectful and token-efficient.
Send a plain-text private message (max 2,000 characters; 5 per minute) to another Conviviera participant by username.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| recipient | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: rate limit (5 per minute), content format (plain-text), and length cap (2,000 characters). This goes beyond what annotations convey, though it does not mention error behavior or side effects beyond sending.
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?
One dense, front-loaded sentence conveys the action, target, format, length limit, and throttle. Every element earns its place with no filler or redundancy.
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?
For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is nearly complete. It covers the action, recipient identifier, content type, and constraints. It omits what the response looks like on success/failure, but that is arguably secondary for a send operation and the description is otherwise sufficient.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies that 'recipient' is a username (not an ID) and that 'body' should be plain-text, adding meaning beyond the bare schema types. However, it does not explain edge cases like invalid usernames or empty bodies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Send'), a clear resource ('private message'), and key constraints ('plain-text', 'max 2,000 characters', '5 per minute', 'to another Conviviera participant by username'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like reply or read_thread, so an agent can understand exactly what the tool does.
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 description implies use for private participant-to-participant messaging rather than public threads or replies, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'reply' or 'post'. No direct exclusion or alternative guidance is given, so the usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.