Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
stashcat-api-mcp

stashcat-api-mcp

by dclausen01
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

send_message

Send text messages to Stashcat channels or conversations. Optionally reply to existing messages.

Instructions

Sends a text message to a Stashcat channel or conversation.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "target_id": "<target_id>",
      "target_type": "<target_type>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "send_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesThe message text to send
target_idYesChannel or conversation ID to send the message to
reply_to_idNoID of the message to reply to (optional)
target_typeYesType of target chat

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that sending is a mutating operation, any permission requirements, or potential side effects. The description is too terse to provide meaningful transparency.

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 a single, grammatically clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb and object.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple four-parameter message-sending tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks context about return values, errors, or behavioral expectations that would be useful for an agent. It's not comprehensive but not severely lacking.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the action ('Sends') and the resource ('a text message to a Stashcat channel or conversation'), making the purpose obvious. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like send_broadcast_message, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No usage guidance is provided; the description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what the tool does.

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