send_text_messageSend plain text push notifications to WeChat, email, or other channels through PushPlus. Specify content, title, recipients, topic, and channel to deliver alerts directly.
快速发送纯文本推送消息（template=txt）
| 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（纯文本） |
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 bears the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says 'send plain-text push message' and adds no details about side effects, authentication requirements, delivery semantics, rate limits, or what happens on success or failure. This is a minimal statement of intent with no meaningful behavioral disclosure.
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 wasted words. It immediately communicates the tool's core purpose and technical template identifier, making it easy to scan and parse.
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 annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. The schema documents all parameters, but the description does not address invocation expectations such as default recipients, channel behavior, or return values. It is sufficient for basic selection but leaves behavioral gaps for an agent to discover elsewhere.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds only the global 'template=txt' context, which is somewhat redundant with the schema's 'content' field description ('纯文本'). It does not meaningfully enrich the parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clearly states the action: '快速发送纯文本推送消息' (quickly send plain-text push messages) and identifies the format via 'template=txt'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_html_message, send_markdown_message, and send_json_message.
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 provides clear context by specifying that this tool is for pure text messages with template=txt, implying it should be used when the payload is plain text. It does not explicitly exclude other formats or name alternatives, but the sibling naming and the 'txt' marker make the intended use reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.