Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
send16-mcp

send16-mcp

by spruikco
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

add_convo_note

Add a private internal note to a conversation, visible only to workspace members. Supports markdown formatting for the note body.

Instructions

Add a private internal note on a conversation. Notes are visible only to workspace members.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "convoId": "<convoId>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "add_convo_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesNote body (markdown supported)
apiKeyNoSend16 API key (overrides SEND16_API_KEY env var)
convoIdYesConversation ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.7

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses visibility (visible to workspace members) but does not mention other behavioral traits such as whether the note can be edited later, if notifications are sent, or error scenarios. The disclosure is partial.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no wasted words. It is concise and to the point.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple create tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and a key behavioral nuance (visibility). It does not cover return values or error handling, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. It confirms that body is the note content and convoId is the conversation, but the schema already states this.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states the action (add), the object (private internal note on a conversation), and a key property (visible only to workspace members). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_reply or update_convo.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for internal notes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_reply or create_contact. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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