send_markdown_messageSend Markdown-formatted push notifications to WeChat, email, and more. Specify recipients, title, and channel to deliver formatted messages directly.
发送Markdown格式的推送消息（template=markdown）
| 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（Markdown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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool sends a Markdown push message; it does not explain side effects, required permissions, delivery behavior, errors, or response/return values. This is minimal disclosure for an action 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?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is concise and immediately states the core purpose. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful behavioral and usage context, so it does not earn a 5.
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 six parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling messaging tools, the description is underspecified. It does not explain return values, channel behavior, how 'to' and 'topic' interact, or why template=markdown matters. An agent can identify the tool but not fully understand its runtime behavior.
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%, so the input schema already documents all six parameters, including the channel enum and content requirement. The description adds little beyond the template=markdown hint, which is already implied by the tool name. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.
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 a specific verb and resource: '发送Markdown格式的推送消息' (send Markdown formatted push message), and mentions template=markdown. This is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like send_text_message, send_html_message, or send_json_message, so it loses the top score.
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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over send_push_message, send_text_message, send_html_message, or batch_send_message. There is no mention of prerequisites, recipient constraints, or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and format type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.