Send a markdown message to any channel in the active mesh using its name or UUID. Use it to post formatted announcements, updates, or discussions to your team.
Post a markdown message to a channel in the active mesh. channel
is a name (with or without '#') or a UUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | Yes | ||
| message | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden; it usefully discloses that content is markdown and the accepted channel identifier forms. It says nothing about authentication requirements, whether the post is editable/deletable, mention or notification behavior, or rate limits for a mutation tool.
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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The identifier-format detail is appended where it belongs rather than padding the opening.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the definition omits who may post, which mesh is 'active' or how it is determined, and what a successful post yields.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the 'channel' parameter (name with or without '#', or UUID) and implies the 'message' parameter is markdown, but adds no constraints such as length limits or formatting rules for the second parameter.
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?
Specific verb ('post') plus resource ('markdown message to a channel') with scope ('in the active mesh'), so the agent immediately knows the action. It does not name or contrast with the sibling post_chat, leaving the channel-vs-chat distinction to be inferred.
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?
No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The existence of post_chat, read_channel, and list_channels in the sibling set means an agent needs guidance on choosing among them, which the description does not supply.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.