Voix contact

Contact the Voix team

submit_contact_form

Send an enquiry to the Voix and LogicBomb Media team through the contact form on their website.

Use this when someone wants to start a project, request a quote, book a demo, ask about pricing or timelines, discuss a partnership, or otherwise reach a human at Voix or LogicBomb Media.

The submission goes straight to the team's notifications and a person replies by email, normally within two business days. There is no other tool here — nothing reads data back, so this is the only thing this server does.

Call it only with details the person actually gave you: their real name, a reply-to address they confirmed, and their own description of what they need. Do not invent contact details, do not submit on a hunch, and tell the person you are sending the message before you send it. Each submission reaches a real human's inbox, so send one per enquiry rather than retrying a call that already succeeded.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Full name of the person making the enquiry.
`email`	Yes	Email address to reply to. Must be one the person gave you — the answer goes here, so a guessed address means they never hear back.
`phone`	No	Phone number, if they would rather be called than emailed.
`scope`	No	The kind of work the enquiry is about. Pick the closest match only if it is clear from what they told you.
`budget`	No	Indicative budget, only if the person has actually shared one. Never estimate this on their behalf.
`company`	No	Company or organisation they are enquiring on behalf of, if they mentioned one.
`message`	Yes	What the enquiry is about, in the person's own words: what they are building, what they need from us, and any deadline they are working to.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`replyBy`	Yes	Plain-English description of when to expect a reply.
`reference`	Yes	Short reference for this submission. Give it to the person so they can quote it if they follow up.
`submitted`	Yes	True when the enquiry reached the team.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description explains real-world consequences: the submission lands in a human inbox, a person replies by email within about two business days, and retrying an already-succeeded call is explicitly discouraged. This directly informs the agent of side effects and non-idempotency.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then consequences, then guardrails. Although longer than a one-liner, each sentence carries operational value and no filler; the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

For a real-human contact tool with seven parameters, the description covers why, when, what happens after the call, and the ethical guardrails around consent and retries. The presence of an output schema means return-value detail is not required, and nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds cross-parameter meaning by requiring that name, email, and message come from the user's own words, that the email be confirmed, and that the agent disclose the sending action before calling.

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 description opens with a specific action and resource: 'Send an enquiry to the Voix and LogicBomb Media team through the contact form on their website.' It also enumerates concrete use cases (project, quote, demo, pricing, partnership), so an agent can tell exactly what the tool accomplishes even with no siblings to differentiate.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when...' and lists trigger conditions, then states there is no other tool on this server, eliminating alternative-selection ambiguity. It also gives when-not-to-call guidance: only with details the person actually provided, never on a hunch, and only one submission per enquiry.

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

All Voix contact tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?