Send a message inside an existing conversation while preserving its routing scope: named threads follow the sender across replacement, UUID routes stay pinned, and consumption is recorded.
Reply preserving scope. Named conversations follow the sender name across replacement; UUID routes stay pinned. Records consumption.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| sender | No | ||
| expects | No | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| summary | No | ||
| record_ref | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at scope preservation, routing behavior, and that it "Records consumption," but leaves key mutation behavior, side effects, permissions, error handling, and idempotency unexplained.
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?
The description is short and front-loads the tool name, so it is not bloated. However, the second sentence is dense and the final fragment "Records consumption" is unexplained, making the structure concise but not sufficiently clear.
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?
This is a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description is far too thin to provide the invocation context an agent needs, especially for required parameters and routing behavior.
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 description coverage is 0% across six parameters, so the description must compensate heavily. It offers cryptic hints about "sender name" and "UUID routes" that may relate to id or sender, but never explains expects, message, summary, or record_ref semantics.
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?
The first sentence, "Reply preserving scope," largely restates the tool name and adds only a vague qualifier. It never names the target resource or clearly states whether the reply is to a message, conversation, or sender, so an agent must infer the core purpose from the tool name alone.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as send_message, acknowledge, or inbox. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.