Skip to main content
Glama
konarkm

send-to-poke-mcp

by konarkm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

send-to-poke-mcp

Minimal MCP server for sending messages to Poke via the inbound webhook.

Features

  • Single MCP tool: send_to_poke

  • Sends a message to Poke using the inbound webhook

  • Structured tool output with normalized response

Related MCP server: mcp-gotify

Requirements

  • Node.js >= 18

  • POKE_API_KEY environment variable

MCP client config

Add the following config to your MCP client:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "send-to-poke": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "send-to-poke-mcp"],
      "env": {
        "POKE_API_KEY": "your-api-key-here"
      }
    }
  }
}

Local development

npm install
npm run build

Smoke test (optional)

POKE_API_KEY=your-api-key-here npm run build
POKE_API_KEY=your-api-key-here npm run smoke-test

Note: this test requires network access and may fail in restricted environments.

MCP Tool

send_to_poke

Send a message to Poke.

Input

{
  "message": "string",
  "include_raw_response": false
}

Output

{
  "status": "sent",
  "http_status": 200,
  "response": {},
  "raw_response": ""
}

Environment Variables

  • POKE_API_KEY (required)

  • POKE_BASE_URL (default: https://poke.com)

  • POKE_TIMEOUT (default: 30000)

Notes

  • Tool responses are returned as MCP structuredContent (with a text fallback for display).

  • This project is not affiliated with Interaction Co.

Available Tools

1 tool
send_to_pokeSend to PokeA

Send a message to Poke using the inbound webhook.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesMessage to send to Poke
include_raw_responseNoInclude raw response text for debugging

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
statusYes
responseNo
http_statusYes
raw_responseNo

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context by mentioning the inbound webhook, but does not disclose additional traits such as rate limits, authentication, or failure behavior. Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, reducing the burden, yet the description contributes little beyond that.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence of ten words, front-loaded with the core action and mechanism. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The combination of the concise description, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema provides sufficient context for an agent to use this tool correctly. However, the description could briefly mention prerequisites such as webhook configuration, so a 4 rather than 5 is appropriate.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so a baseline score of 3 is warranted.

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?

The description clearly identifies the action ('Send'), the target ('a message to Poke'), and the mechanism ('inbound webhook'). It is unambiguous and sufficiently specific, and with no sibling tools, differentiation is not needed.

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?

The description provides clear context for usage—sending a message to Poke—but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Since there are no sibling tools, this is not a major omission, but the absence of explicit usage conditions prevents a 5.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 1 tool updatev0.1.0
    • First observedsend_to_poke
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The purpose is singular: sending a message to Poke.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name follows a clear verb_noun pattern (send_to_poke), and with only one tool there are no inconsistencies to worry about.

Tool Count4/5

The server has a single tool, which is minimal but appropriate for its extremely narrow scope of sending messages. It is slightly on the thin side but not unreasonable for a dedicated purpose.

Completeness5/5

For the stated purpose of sending messages via inbound webhook, the tool fully covers the operation. There are no obvious gaps in functionality.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers