Skip to main content
Glama
iambashar

agent-intercom

by iambashar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Send a message to another agent

mail_send

Deliver a text message to another coding agent's inbox to hand off tasks, ask questions, or report results. Use reply_to to answer a received message.

Instructions

Deliver a text message from you ("agent") to another coding agent's inbox, for example to hand off a task, ask a question or report a result. Call mail_peers first if you are unsure of the recipient name. To answer a message you received from mail_check, pass its id as reply_to. Each call writes one new message and never edits or removes existing mail. If the recipient has not started yet, the message waits in its inbox. Returns "sent to "; keep the id if you expect a reply that references it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesRecipient agent name as listed by mail_peers, e.g. "codex", "claude" or "gemini". Letters, digits, _ and -, with optional .suffix segments.
bodyYesMessage text, in plain text or Markdown. Include everything the recipient needs, since it cannot see your conversation.
reply_toNoOptional. The id of the message you are answering (the value in [brackets] from mail_check), so the recipient can match the reply to its question.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.2.6
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / body / description
      Added value: +"Message text, in plain text or Markdown. Include everything the recipient needs, since it cannot see your conversation."
    • addedInput schema / properties / body / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • changedInput schema / properties / reply_to / description
      Previous value: -"Id of the message you are replying to"New value: +"Optional. The id of the message you are answering (the value in [brackets] from mail_check), so the recipient can match the reply to its question."
    • changedInput schema / properties / to / description
      Previous value: -"Recipient agent name, e.g. \"codex\" or \"claude\""New value: +"Recipient agent name as listed by mail_peers, e.g. \"codex\", \"claude\" or \"gemini\". Letters, digits, _ and -, with optional .suffix segments."
    • addedInput schema / properties / to / pattern
      Added value: +"^[\\w-]+(\\.[\\w-]+)*$"
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description goes beyond them with genuinely new traits: each call appends one new message and never edits or removes existing mail, and a message to a not-yet-started recipient queues in its inbox. It also discloses the return format ("sent <id> to <name>"), which no output schema provides. It stops short of stating auth requirements 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core action and use cases, then layered with prerequisites, semantics, and return value in a logical order; every sentence carries information. It is a touch long at five sentences with a trailing tip about keeping the id, which is useful but the least essential element.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return value, the append-only side-effect model, and the queuing behavior for offline recipients. Combined with the prerequisites and reply workflow, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly in a single call.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-tool meaning the schema cannot: the recipient name must come from mail_peers, and reply_to should be the bracketed id obtained from mail_check. That workflow linkage is real added value over the field-level text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (deliver a text message to another agent's inbox) and immediately enumerates the use cases: hand off a task, ask a question, report a result. It is clearly distinguishable from mail_check (receiving/replies) and mail_peers (name discovery), so an agent can pick it without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Names the alternatives and the exact conditions that select them: call mail_peers first if unsure of the recipient, and pass mail_check's message id as reply_to when answering. Both the before-call prerequisite and the reply path are spelled out rather than implied.

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