cozyvtt-mcp

Chat Send

chat_send

Post a campaign chat message as narration or player dialogue. Requires authenticated membership; does not confirm delivery.

Instructions

Post one campaign chat message as narration or player dialogue. Use chat_read to inspect history; use dice_roll for dice, not chat text pretending to be a roll. Authenticated campaign membership is required; type is a message category, not a role grant. On v1.5.0 the server selects the resulting broadcast category from the authenticated role. Upstream campaign chat cooldown may reject messages. Creates a new message on each accepted send; do not retry blindly. Returns sent:true,confirmed:false,status:"pending" inside data: dispatch is not a business ACK. Read events_poll for results/system.error and inspect state before further action; never blindly resend. Returns {ok:true,data} on success; tool-body failures return {ok:false,error} with optional diagnostic data. Argument-schema errors are MCP errors.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	No	Message category: DM (default narration) or PLAYER. This does not change the authenticated role.	DM
`content`	Yes	Nonblank message text, at most 2000 characters; whitespace is preserved when sent.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.0Sep 20, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / content / description

Added value: +"Nonblank message text, at most 2000 characters; whitespace is preserved when sent."

addedInput schema / properties / type / description

Added value: +"Message category: DM (default narration) or PLAYER. This does not change the authenticated role."

First observedv0.1.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: upstream cooldown may reject, each accepted send creates a new message, 'sent:true,confirmed:false' is dispatch and not a business ACK, and events_poll must be read before retrying. This is exactly the caveat detail an agent needs to avoid blind retries.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and alternatives, and every sentence carries operational weight. However it is dense and slightly repetitive around retry/ACK language ('do not retry blindly' and 'never blindly resend'), which costs a point on tightness.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite an output schema existing, the description still frames the result contract (sent/confirmed/status on dispatch, {ok:true,data} vs {ok:false,error}, MCP-level schema errors), leaving no ambiguity about what a successful call does or does not guarantee.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely new semantics: 'type' does not change the authenticated role and, on v1.5.0, the server derives the broadcast category from the authenticated role. That is meaning beyond the schema's field description.

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?

The opening sentence states a precise verb and resource ('Post one campaign chat message') and immediately scopes the two modes (narration vs player dialogue). It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like chat_read and dice_roll, which the description names explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It names alternatives and their selecting conditions: chat_read for history, dice_roll for dice rather than chat text posing as a roll. It also states the authentication prerequisite (authenticated campaign membership) and a clear exclusion ('type is a message category, not a role grant').

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