Send a group direct message to multiple Pumble users by resolving names, emails, or IDs.
Send a group direct message to multiple users. Resolves 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. | |
| userIdentifiers | Yes | Array of recipient user names, emails, or IDs (min 2, max 8). 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for a write operation. It does not disclose permission requirements, whether a new group conversation is created, what happens when a name or email cannot be resolved, any rate limits, or what the response contains.
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 core purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. The second sentence largely restates what the tool name already says about identifier resolution, so it is efficient but not entirely load-bearing.
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 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent still lacks the failure behavior, permissions context, and confirmation of what a successful send returns.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters and their 2-to-8 recipient limit are fully documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The line 'Resolves names/emails natively' relates to userIdentifiers but adds no format or behavior detail beyond what the schema already states.
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?
The description gives a clear verb and resource ('Send a group direct message') plus the scope 'multiple users', which implicitly separates it from the single-recipient sibling send_dm_via_name_email_or_id. It does not explicitly name that alternative, so it falls 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as send_dm_via_name_email_or_id for one-to-one messages or send_message_via_channel_name_or_id for channels. The reader must infer the selection criteria from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.