Send messages to QQ groups or private users by specifying message type, content, and target user or group ID.
Send message (generic)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | Message content | |
| user_id | No | User QQ number | |
| group_id | No | Group ID | |
| auto_escape | No | Whether to auto-escape | |
| message_type | Yes | Message type (group/private) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are none, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose side effects, permissions, or whether the message is actually sent asynchronously. No info on rate limits or error conditions, which is significant for a message-sending tool.
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?
Single concise sentence with no waste. It is short but not overly verbose.
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?
Given the tool has 5 parameters and no annotations, the description is too brief. It doesn't explain the relationship between user_id/group_id and message_type, nor any behavior like auto_escape's effect. No guidance on choosing this over siblings.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema describes all parameters. The description adds nothing about parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states the verb 'send' and resource 'message', but it is very generic and doesn't distinguish from siblings like send_group_msg and send_private_msg. However, the message_type parameter does clarify that it can be either group or private, which adds some specificity.
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?
No guidance on when to use this generic tool versus the more specific send_group_msg and send_private_msg siblings. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, such as needing a user_id for private messages or group_id for group messages.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.