monapay_test_zalo_groupSend a plain-text test message to a Zalo group using a MONA Pay group config ID to verify bot connectivity, since Zalo does not parse Markdown.
Gửi tin thử text thuần; nhóm phải có bot Gấu Mona vì Zalo không parse Markdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID cấu hình nhóm Zalo do MONA Pay trả về (UUIDv6) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, telling the agent this is a mutating but non-destructive call; the description adds useful behavior (the message is plain text, Markdown is not rendered, and the bot must be present). It does not state rate limits, whether it creates a visible conversation record, or what is returned on success/failure.
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 clauses with zero filler; the plain-text constraint and the bot prerequisite are front-loaded. Slightly telegraphic but every part earns 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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials (plain-text payload, bot prerequisite) but omits what happens on failure, whether the message is persisted, and how this test differs from other test-send tools. Adequate but with visible gaps.
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?
Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that 'id' is the Zalo group config UUIDv6 returned by MONA Pay. The description references 'nhóm' (group) but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so 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?
The description names a specific verb and resource — sending a plain-text test message into a Zalo group — which is distinct from siblings like monapay_create_zalo_group, monapay_update_zalo_group and monapay_zalo_group_logs. It does not explicitly state that the target is an existing group identified by config ID, so the differentiation relies on the name/title.
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?
It states a real precondition: the group must already have the Gấu Mona bot because Zalo does not parse Markdown. However, it offers no guidance on when to call this versus other test/verification tools (e.g. monapay_test_webhook, monapay_test_email) or when it should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.