Agent Chef

Message the household

message_group

Notify household members by push, SMS/MMS, or email, inserting each person's voting link into meal-plan ballots, reminders, or winner announcements.

Instructions

Send a push notification, SMS/MMS or email to household members. '{vote_link}' in the message becomes each member's personal voting link. Channel 'auto' texts members with a phone and emails the rest. Providers now: {"sms":"dry-run","email":"resend","push":"web-push"} (dry-run = logged only).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	No	What this message is; lets next_actions avoid repeats	custom
`channel`	No	auto = push to members who opted in on their vote page, else text if they have a phone, else email	auto
`message`	Yes
`subject`	No
`image_urls`	No
`member_names`	No	Limit to these members; default everyone

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`results`	Yes
`providers`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.1.1Oct 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / channel / description

Added value: +"auto = push to members who opted in on their vote page, else text if they have a phone, else email"

changedInput schema / properties / channel / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "sms",
-  "email",
-  "auto"
-]New value: +[
+  "sms",
+  "email",
+  "push",
+  "auto"
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / providers / properties / push

Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / channel / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "sms",
-  "email",
-  "none"
-]New value: +[
+  "sms",
+  "email",
+  "push",
+  "none"
+]

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/external nature is already known. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the '{vote_link}' personalization substitution, the channel auto routing rule, and critically the 'dry-run = logged only' provider state, which tells the agent messages may not actually be delivered. It omits auth requirements and rate limits, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no padding; the core send behavior leads and the templating/provider caveats follow. The final 'Providers now: {...}' sentence is slightly clunky but carries non-obvious operational information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers channels, templating, and provider/dry-run state. The gap is the undocumented optional parameters (subject, image_urls), which are neither in the description nor the schema descriptions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50% (kind, channel, member_names documented in-schema). The description adds meaning for 'message' via the '{vote_link}' placeholder and clarifies 'auto' for channel, but says nothing about subject, image_urls, or member_names, leaving half the parameters without compensating detail.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Send a push notification, SMS/MMS or email to household members.' This is the sole messaging tool among the siblings, so no differentiation is needed, and the channel enumeration immediately scopes 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It describes what channel 'auto' does ('texts members with a phone and emails the rest'), which implies default behavior, but never states when to prefer this tool or how to choose a channel versus other notification paths. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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