chat-export-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

chats_send

Send a follow-up message to an existing chat in ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, or other supported platforms through your logged-in browser, including attachments.

Instructions

Send a follow-up message in an existing chat via the bound browser.

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": {
      "platform": "<platform>",
      "chatId": "<chatId>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "chats_send"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mode`	No
`text`	Yes
`files`	No
`model`	No
`tools`	No
`chatId`	Yes
`toggles`	No
`platform`	Yes	Provider id: chatgpt \| grok \| grok-x \| claude \| copilot \| qwen \| deepseek \| perplexity

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.7Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about side effects, whether sending blocks on a model reply, latency/rate limits, or failure modes when the browser is unbound. For a write operation with 8 parameters, only the delivery channel is mentioned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key qualifiers ('follow-up', 'existing chat', 'bound browser') come early. It is efficient but arguably under-sized relative to the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no annotations, no output schema, 8 parameters at 13% schema coverage, and a mutation-style send action, the definition leaves an agent unable to predict prerequisite checks, attachment behavior, or provider-specific options. The one-liner is far too thin for this surface area.

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 13%: platform has an enum description, but mode, model, tools, toggles, and files are undocumented in both schema and description. The description references only 'message' and 'existing chat', adding essentially no meaning to the five unexplained parameters, several of which (model, tools, toggles) look provider-specific and are non-obvious.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Send a follow-up message') and a clear target ('in an existing chat'), which implicitly separates it from siblings like chats_create that start new conversations. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

'In an existing chat' and 'via the bound browser' imply prerequisites (a chat must already exist, a browser must be bound), but the description never states when to use this versus chats_create or chat_ask, nor what to do if no browser is bound. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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