agent-bridge

send_message

Send messages to named agents or all online agents in a room; receive delivery status (pushed, queued, or unknown).

Instructions

Send a message to one agent in your room by name, or to "*" to broadcast to every online agent in your room. Returns a delivery report: pushed (handed to the recipient's connection), queued (waiting in its inbox), unknown.

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": {
      "to": "<to>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "send_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	recipient name, or "*" for broadcast
`content`	Yes
`reply_to`	No	message_id this replies to (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

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 carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real value by explaining the delivery report states (pushed/queued/unknown), which tells the agent how to interpret non-errors. It omits prerequisites, permission/auth requirements, and what happens to 'unknown' recipients.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste; addressing modes come first, return semantics second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully documents the return report, which the agent could not otherwise know. It is nearly complete for a moderate-complexity tool, lacking only prerequisite/registration context and error behavior for unknown recipients.

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 67%; the description reinforces 'to' as a recipient name or "*" for broadcast, matching the schema entry. It says nothing about 'content' or the optional 'reply_to' threading parameter, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send a message to one agent in your room') plus the broadcast variant, and the room scoping makes it clearly distinct from receiving-oriented siblings like wait_for_message. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: use this to reach a named agent or everyone online. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of prerequisites (register/join_room), even though sibling tools suggest those steps come first.

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

Deploy Server