send_message
Send a follow-up message to a running session.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | ||
| session_id | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Send a follow-up message to a running session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | ||
| session_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'send' but does not explain blocking behavior, return values, side effects, or any permissions needed. This is insufficient 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?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, though it could be expanded with behavioral details without losing conciseness.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context like whether the call is blocking, what happens if the session is not running, or how to interpret the response. For a tool with no annotations, this is incomplete.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds almost no meaning beyond parameter names. 'message' and 'session_id' are self-explanatory from their names, but no format, constraints, or usage hints are provided.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'send', the resource 'message', and the context 'follow-up to a running session'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like cancel_session or run_agent because no other sibling sends messages.
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?
The description specifies that the tool is for sending a follow-up message to a 'running session', implying prerequisite of having an active session. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools for different scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: session lifecycle (run, cancel, wait, message, share), file operations (list, read, write), and agent discovery. No two tools have overlapping purposes; even the session-related tools are clearly separated by their verb.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (cancel_session, list_files, run_agent, etc.). The pattern is uniform across session, file, and agent operations, making the API highly predictable.
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for a computer-use agent API. It covers agent discovery, session lifecycle, messaging, sharing, and file access without unnecessary bloat, fitting comfortably in the ideal 3-15 range.
The tool set covers the core workflow: list agents, run them, wait for results, send follow-ups, cancel, share, and access files. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no list_sessions or delete_file), but they do not block the primary use case.