send_json_messageSend JSON-formatted push notifications to WeChat, email, and other channels through PushPlus. Define content, recipients, and channel to deliver structured messages.
发送JSON格式的推送消息（template=json）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | 好友令牌，多人用逗号隔开 | |
| pre | No | 预处理编码，仅供会员使用 | |
| title | No | 消息标题，可选 | |
| topic | No | 群组编码，不填仅发送给自己 | |
| channel | No | 推送渠道 | |
| content | Yes | 消息内容（JSON格式） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.11Input schema / properties / channel / enumPrevious value: -[
- "wechat",
- "webhook",
- "cp",
- "mail",
- "sms",
- "voice",
- "extension",
- "app",
- "clawbot",
- "qq"
-]New value: +[
+ "wechat",
+ "webhook",
+ "cp",
+ "mail",
+ "sms",
+ "voice",
+ "extension",
+ "app",
+ "clawbot",
+ "cmcc",
+ "qq"
+]v1.0.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states the send action and template, but does not disclose side effects, response behavior, failure modes, default channel behavior, or any required authorization context. For a mutating send operation, this is a significant transparency gap.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and format clearly, earning its place without unnecessary detail.
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?
With six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too terse. It doesn't explain what distinguishes this endpoint from the generic send_push_message, what happens when optional fields like 'to' or 'channel' are omitted, or what the caller can expect in response. An agent may call it correctly based on schema but lacks operational context.
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 all six parameters are already described. The description adds only the 'template=json' context and the JSON-format expectation, which is useful but doesn't substantially enrich the parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('发送') and resource ('JSON格式的推送消息'), and identifies the exact template ('template=json'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_text_message, send_html_message, and send_markdown_message, which handle other formats.
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?
The description implies when to use this tool: when sending a JSON-format push message. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it name alternatives or contrast with the generic send_push_message tool, leaving selection partly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.