clickedu-mcp

send_message

Sends one message to one recipient, returning a preview first and sending only after explicit confirmation.

Instructions

Send ONE message to ONE recipient. Single action only.

Without confirm=True this returns a PREVIEW (resolved recipient, subject, body) and sends nothing. Call again with confirm=True only after the teacher approves. recipient_id is a directory id like 'u_1610' from list_message_recipients, or a plain email address.

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": {
      "recipient_id": "<recipient_id>",
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "send_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes
`confirm`	No
`subject`	Yes
`recipient_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the default path is a non-sending preview, that confirm=True is the mutation trigger, and that human approval is a precondition. It does not state whether a sent message is reversible, what permissions are needed, or any rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then the confirmation protocol, then the identifier format. Every sentence carries operational information an agent needs, with no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Although an output schema exists, the description helpfully characterizes the preview payload (resolved recipient, subject, body), and it covers the two things the schema cannot convey: the two-step confirm workflow and the identifier format. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the two non-obvious parameters: recipient_id's accepted forms ('u_1610' directory id or plain email) and its source tool, plus confirm's preview-vs-send semantics. subject and body are left entirely undescribed, though their meaning is largely self-evident from the 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 and resource ('Send ONE message to ONE recipient') and constrains scope with 'Single action only,' which is enough to separate it from the read-only siblings like get_inbox. It never explicitly frames itself against an alternative, so it stops just 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a clear calling protocol: first call returns a preview, second call with confirm=True actually sends, and only after teacher approval. The enrollment of list_message_recipients as the source of recipient_id also tells the agent what to call first. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it (e.g., multiple recipients or bulk), which keeps it from a 5.

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