Send a 1-on-1 direct message by resolving a user's name, email, or ID, so you can reach the right coworker without manually looking up their Pumble user ID.
Send a 1-on-1 direct message. Resolves user names/emails natively.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The message text to send (max 4000 characters). If not provided, MUST ASK. DO NOT GUESS. | |
| userIdentifier | Yes | User name, email, or ID. If not provided, MUST ASK. DO NOT GUESS. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Resolves user names/emails natively' hints at identifier resolution, but nothing says what happens with an ambiguous or non-matching name, whether a DM conversation is auto-created, whether the send is irreversible, or what rate limits apply to an outbound-message action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with the action front-loaded; nothing is padded. The second sentence largely restates what the userIdentifier schema already says, so it is not fully earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter send tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the basics. It still omits resolution-failure behavior and the result of a successful send, which an agent needs when a name is ambiguous.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters already document accepted identifier forms and the 'MUST ASK, DO NOT GUESS' constraint. 'Resolves user names/emails natively' slightly reinforces userIdentifier semantics but adds no format or resolution-failure detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Send a 1-on-1 direct message'), and '1-on-1' implicitly separates it from send_group_dm_via_names_emails_or_ids and send_message_via_channel_name_or_id. It never names those siblings outright, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'1-on-1' implies this is for a single recipient rather than a channel or group, which is implied usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of the group DM alternative, and no prerequisites such as whether the target user must exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.