Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
phabricator-mcp

phabricator-mcp

by freelancer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

phabricator_conpherence_send

Send a message to a Conpherence chat room or thread using its monogram, ID, or PHID; supports Remarkup formatting.

Instructions

Send a message to a Conpherence chat room/thread

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": {
      "objectIdentifier": "<objectIdentifier>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "phabricator_conpherence_send"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesMessage text (supports Remarkup)
objectIdentifierYesRoom monogram (e.g., "Z123"), numeric ID, or PHID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.19

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-not-destructive profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that – no permission requirements, no mention of whether the message posts to an existing thread or creates one, no rate/limit or return behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded. It earns its place but is so terse that slightly more context could be added without waste.

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 two-parameter, well-specified tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is minimally adequate. It omits behavioral detail (thread semantics, result) that would help an agent call it confidently.

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 100%, so both parameters (message with Remarkup support, objectIdentifier accepting monogram/ID/PHID) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Send) and resource (message to a Conpherence chat room/thread), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling read/create/edit tools in the same family. It does not explicitly name the siblings it is not, so it stops 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The intent is implied by the name and description: post a message to a room. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus phabricator_conpherence_read or _create, and no mention of prerequisites or whether it starts a new thread.

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