Skip to main content
Glama
sekera-radim

@briefgate/mcp

by sekera-radim
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Send a reminder

send_chase

Send a manual SMS or email reminder to a client when a deadline nears or automatic reminders go unanswered. Use it as an extra nudge to prompt a response without disrupting the ongoing chase schedule.

Instructions

Send a manual reminder to the client outside the automatic schedule.

Use when a deadline is approaching and the client has not responded to automatic reminders, or when you want to send an SMS after email attempts have failed. The automatic chase schedule continues after this call — this is an extra nudge, not a replacement.

Returns { sent: true }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
channelNoDelivery channel. Email is the only one offered.
intake_idYesIntake ID returned by define_intake.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.9.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / channel / description
      Previous value: -"Delivery channel. Default: email. Use \"sms\" only if the client provided a phone number and has not responded to emails."New value: +"Delivery channel. Email is the only one offered."
    • changedInput schema / properties / channel / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "email",
-  "sms"
-]New value: +[
+  "email"
+]
  2. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the automatic chase schedule continues after this call, and the call returns { sent: true }. It does not warn about duplicate sends, but idempotentHint=false already covers that. The SMS mention conflicts with the schema's email-only channel, which slightly weakens transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the main action, followed by use cases and the return value. Every sentence contributes something, though the SMS sentence is confusing and could be removed or corrected. Overall it is efficient and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the main behavior, use cases, and return value. The missing piece is the contradiction between the SMS mention and the email-only channel, which is significant because it affects how the agent should invoke the tool. The schema covers the intake_id prerequisite, so no major gap there.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. However, the description says an SMS can be sent after email failures, while the channel parameter only allows 'email'. This actively misleads the agent about valid parameter values, so the description detracts from rather than adds to parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the core action: sending a manual reminder outside the automatic schedule. It differentiates the tool from sibling intake/list tools and from the automatic chase flow, though it does not name a specific sibling alternative. The mention of sending an SMS after email failures introduces some ambiguity about the tool's actual delivery scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit conditions for use: when a deadline is approaching, when automatic reminders got no response, or after email attempts failed. It also clarifies that this is an extra nudge and not a replacement for the automatic schedule. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the provided context is actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools