emptysock-mcp

actor_send_message

Send a message to an actor's inbox for processing on the next flush pass. Specify actor ID and message payload to trigger actor behaviors.

Instructions

Enqueue a message in a specific actor's inbox. The actor processes it on the next flush pass.

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": {
      "actorId": "<actorId>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "actor_send_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`actorId`	Yes
`message`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses two behavioral traits: the message is queued rather than synchronously handled, and processing occurs on the next flush pass. It stops short of describing error behavior or whether the message is delivered at most once, but the core side effect is clear.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler or repeated schema information. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

The description is sufficient for a low-complexity side-effect tool: it states the action, target, and asynchronous processing behavior. There is no output schema to document, though a note on failure handling or message ordering would make it fully complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema parameter coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters beyond their names. 'actorId' is loosely implied by 'specific actor' and 'message' by the verb 'enqueue', but the description adds no semantics about required message type, payload constraints, or behavior when the actor doesn't exist.

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 ('Enqueue') and clearly identifies the resource ('a specific actor's inbox'), making the operation's intent unambiguous. The phrase 'specific actor' also implicitly differentiates it from broadcast-style messaging among the sibling tools.

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 states that the message is enqueued and later processed on the next flush pass, which gives useful context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not directly contrast with actor_broadcast or other sibling tools, so the agent must infer the distinguishing conditions.

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