Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
musterd

musterd

Official
by musterd-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

team_send

Send coordination acts to teammates: post status updates, request help, hand off work, accept or decline tasks, resolve threads, steer, challenge, defer, or ask a human.

Instructions

Send a coordination Act. Use status_update to add to your lane, request_help when blocked, handoff to transfer work, accept/decline to answer, wait to pause, resolve to close a thread, steer to redirect, challenge for justification, defer to shelve a Goal, or ask a human. ask requires meta.species and meta.tier; handoff names its lane in meta.lane_handoff {lane, branch} or one is derived. 2–4 to names mean any may answer on message, request_help, or challenge — not ask (quiet-set fan-out is unshipped, ADR 260 / ADR 401).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "act": "<act>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "team_send"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNomember name, '@team', '@broadcast', or 2-4 names (any may answer on message, request_help, challenge — not ask)@team
actYes
bodyYes
metaNoact-specific fields, e.g. {progress:0.5}
threadNothread id to reply within
reply_toNomessage id this accepts/declines; omit to answer the latest open ask

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adds meaningful behavior: ask requires meta.species and meta.tier, handoff can derive a lane, and 2-4 recipient names have restricted fan-out semantics. It still omits broader delivery, permission, and side-effect details.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, and the dense paragraph is mostly information-bearing, with each act mapping earning its place. Some jargon, such as 'quiet-set fan-out' and ADR references, adds cognitive load but is tied to a real limitation.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a complex 13-act coordination tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers critical ask/handoff requirements and recipient fan-out caveats. However, it omits the 'message' and 'insight' acts from the usage mapping and does not explain meta fields for most other acts or what sending returns.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds substantial meaning beyond the 67%-covered schema: it maps act values to intents, specifies required meta fields for ask and handoff, and explains the special multi-recipient interpretation of 'to.' It does not document thread/reply_to semantics, but the schema already describes those.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action, 'Send a coordination Act,' and enumerates the act types it supports, so the tool's core purpose is clear. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from overlapping siblings such as lane_handoff or team_question.

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?

It gives explicit act-level usage guidance, e.g. 'status_update to add to your lane,' 'request_help when blocked,' and 'handoff to transfer work.' It does not state when to use this tool instead of a sibling tool or provide exclusions.

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