Sends a file from an absolute path to an iMessage chat; images and audio render inline in Messages.
Send a file by absolute path. Images and audio render inline in Messages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | ||
| path | Yes | Absolute path. | |
| confirm | No | Must be true. A sent message can't be unsent, so pass it only when the person asked for this exact message. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/irreversible profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — images and audio render inline — but does not itself restate irreversibility or the confirm requirement, which the schema carries.
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 short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though the second sentence's rendering detail is more of a nice-to-have than essential content.
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?
For a destructive, no-output-schema tool this is adequate but thin: the irreversibility warning lives only in the schema's confirm description, not the tool description, and there is no indication of delivery failure modes or whether the target must be a known contact. It covers the minimum needed to call the tool.
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 67% and the confirm parameter already has a strong, self-contained description about irreversibility. The description only repeats the absolute-path constraint on 'path' and says nothing about 'to' or 'confirm', so it adds little beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Send a file') plus a format constraint ('by absolute path'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from send_message. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: you call this when you want to deliver a file rather than text. There is no statement of when to prefer this over send_message or transcribe_voice_note, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.