Reply to an inbox conversation while preserving threading and using the original alias.
Reply to an inbox conversation. The reply is sent from the original recipient address (the alias the convo arrived on) and threaded back to the contact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | No | HTML body of the reply | |
| text | No | Plain text body of the reply | |
| apiKey | No | Send16 API key (overrides SEND16_API_KEY env var) | |
| convoId | Yes | Conversation ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the reply comes from the original recipient address and is threaded, which is key behavioral info. However, it does not mention side effects, error scenarios, or permissions required.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded. Achieves high information density without redundancy.
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 no output schema, the description lacks information about return values. It covers the main action well but omits what the response contains. Also does not mention that both html and text are optional, which may lead to an empty reply.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it does not clarify which body (html/text) is necessary or how apiKey interacts.
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 verb 'Reply' and the resource 'inbox conversation'. It adds specific details about the reply being sent from the original recipient address and threaded, distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_broadcast or send_email.
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 usage for replying to a conversation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., starting a new conversation with send_email). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.