lendlord-mcp

Add communication message

add_communication_message

Add an internal note or tenant-visible reply to a maintenance report or conversation.

Instructions

Add a message to a maintenance report/conversation. kind "note" = internal note (landlord only); kind "message" = reply visible to the tenant.

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": {
      "communicationId": "<communicationId>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "add_communication_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	No		note
`confirm`	No	Set true once the user has approved writes for this session
`message`	Yes
`communicationId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the write nature is already covered. The description adds real value by disclosing tenant visibility differences between 'note' and 'message', a trait annotations cannot express. However, it omits the write-approval prerequisite tied to the 'confirm' parameter.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the enum semantics immediately after. No filler.

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 write tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the definition covers the visibility model but omits the 'confirm' approval requirement for writes and any indication of what is returned. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 25%, so the schema under-documents three of four params. The description compensates by explaining the 'kind' enum meanings, which the schema leaves bare, but says nothing about 'confirm' or 'communicationId' beyond their names.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("add a message to a maintenance report/conversation") and clarifies the two message kinds. An agent can distinguish it from update_communication or list_communications, though the boundary with update_communication is never made explicit.

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?

The kind semantics imply when to use 'note' vs 'message', but there is no guidance on when to call this tool versus update_communication, get_communication, or create_maintenance_report. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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