send_chatPosts a text chat line as the bot into a broadcast room's chat channel using a meeting ID. Use it to send messages to viewers without speaking on stage.
Posts a chat line as the bot. Same chat channel as share_content. It does not speak (say does that).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The chat message, up to 2000 characters. | |
| meeting_id | Yes | The meeting_id of the room (from create_broadcast or join_broadcast). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavioral facts beyond the schema: the message is attributed to the bot and is not rendered as speech. It omits whether the line persists in the transcript, permission/auth requirements, and rate limits or failure behavior for a mutation.
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?
Three very short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with zero filler. The middle clause 'Same chat channel as share_content' is a fragment that reads slightly awkwardly but still earns its place as a scoping cue.
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 simple two-parameter write tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers identity, channel and non-speech behavior, which is close to adequate. It stops short of stating what a caller gets back or how failures surface, leaving the no-annotation case partly uncovered.
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% and both parameters document their own meaning and length bounds, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the 2000-character cap or how meeting_id is obtained that the schema does not already say.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Posts a chat line') plus the acting identity ('as the bot'), and explicitly separates itself from two siblings: share_content (same channel, different content type) and say (speech output). An agent can pick this tool without inspecting any schema.
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 does not speak (say does that)' gives an explicit when-not and names the alternative tool. There is no guidance on when to prefer send_chat over tail_lines/get_transcript for reading chat, but the main confusion pair (text vs speech) is resolved.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.