Skip to main content
Glama
murtazox04

Cue

by murtazox04
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

send_event

Report an event about a person and let Cue's rules decide whether and what to notify. Use it when a rule can cover the case instead of messaging directly.

Instructions

Report that something happened to a person (e.g. order.shipped) and let Cue's rules decide whether and what to notify. Prefer it to send_message whenever a rule can cover the case. Needs the events:write scope.

Rules run asynchronously, so the result only confirms receipt: id, status (pending until processed) and duplicate (true when this idempotency key was already reported; nothing new happens). Call get_event with the id to see, per rule, whether it matched and which message it produced. An unknown recipient gets an empty profile, so a message may end suppressed with no_reachable_channel. For agent keys, the messages count against the agent's per-person budget, are capped at its importance ceiling and may wait for approval. Fails with 403 for names starting with cue. and 422 for invalid input.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoEvent details as a JSON object, at most 16 KB. Rule conditions read it as `event.data`, templates as `data`. Defaults to {}.
nameYesEvent name, 1-255 letters, digits and `_ . : - /`, e.g. `order.shipped`. Rules listen for it by name or pattern (`order.*`). Names starting with `cue.` are reserved.
recipientYesExternal id of the person the event is about: the id your system uses for them, not a Cue UUID.
idempotency_keyNoUp to 255 characters derived from the triggering action (e.g. `order-9-shipped`), unique per sender: a repeat is recognised and notifies nobody again. Strongly recommended.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / data / description
      Added value: +"Event details as a JSON object, at most 16 KB. Rule conditions read it as `event.data`, templates as `data`. Defaults to {}."
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / description
      Added value: +"Up to 255 characters derived from the triggering action (e.g. `order-9-shipped`), unique per sender: a repeat is recognised and notifies nobody again. Strongly recommended."
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Added value: +"Event name, 1-255 letters, digits and `_ . : - /`, e.g. `order.shipped`. Rules listen for it by name or pattern (`order.*`). Names starting with `cue.` are reserved."
    • addedInput schema / properties / recipient / description
      Added value: +"External id of the person the event is about: the id your system uses for them, not a Cue UUID."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare the coarse profile (not read-only, open-world, non-destructive); the description goes far beyond with asynchronous processing, the receipt-only result shape (`status: pending`, `duplicate`), idempotency semantics, the suppressed/no_reachable_channel edge case, per-person budget and importance-ceiling limits, approval waits, and explicit 403/422 failure modes.

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-loads purpose and the send_message routing rule before behavior, and every sentence carries real information. It is dense and slightly long, but the density is justified by the async/idempotency/error complexity rather than padding.

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?

For a fire-and-forget event tool with no output schema, the description supplies exactly what is missing: the return fields, why they are only a receipt, how to inspect per-rule outcomes via get_event, and the failure codes. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (event name grammar, recipient id semantics, data size limit, idempotency key derivation). The description reinforces the recipient/idempotency behavior but adds no syntax beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Report that something happened to a person') plus a concrete example event name, and explicitly positions it against the sibling send_message. An agent can distinguish it from send_message and get_event 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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: 'Prefer it to send_message whenever a rule can cover the case', and names the scope required (`events:write`). It also tells the agent how to follow up (call get_event with the returned id), which is the correct next step versus alternatives.

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