Admin Substitute

comms.send_sms

Send an SMS message to a phone number on behalf of the company. Requires a valid Australian mobile number. Subject to monthly SMS quota.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Australian phone number to send to (e.g. "0412345678" or "+61412345678"). Required.
`body`	Yes	SMS message body. Max 1600 characters. Required.
`jobId`	No	Optional job ID to link this message to.
`leadId`	No	Optional lead ID to link this message to.
`messageType`	No	Type of message for logging/analytics. Defaults to "manual".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sid`	No	Twilio message SID for tracking
`error`	No	Error message if send failed
`success`	No	Whether the SMS was sent successfully

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and open world (openWorldHint=true). Description adds quota and number format constraints, but lacks details on failure modes, idempotency, or side effects beyond the quota note.

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 sentences, front-loaded with action and constraints. No filler, every word adds value.

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 output schema present, return value explanation is unnecessary. Description covers key constraints (Australian number, quota) and purpose, but could mention character limit explicitly (though schema covers it). Adequate for this tool's complexity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add semantic value beyond the schema descriptions (e.g., 'Australian mobile number' is already in the to parameter 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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Send an SMS message to a phone number on behalf of the company.' Distinguishes from sibling tools like comms.send_email and comms.list by specifying the channel (SMS) and constraints (Australian number, quota).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

States when to use (send SMS) and implicit constraints (Australian number, monthly quota). Does not explicitly exclude scenarios or contrast with alternatives like email, but context is sufficient for basic guidance.

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

All Admin Substitute tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct resource+action naming (e.g., leads.create, jobs.list), but some overlap exists in analytics tools (dashboard, detailed, financials) and workflow automations (process_lead vs google_ads_pipeline). Descriptions clarify purposes, so slight confusion is possible but limited.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent `domain.action` pattern (e.g., leads.create, billing.status). No mixing of camelCase or snake_case. Even complex names like lifecycle.assess or scaling.readiness_score adhere to the convention.

Tool Count1/5

95 tools is far beyond typical well-scoped servers (3-15). While the server aims to cover an entire business management platform, this volume is overwhelming for an agent, making selection and memory difficult.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering formation, hiring, compliance, funding, leads, quotes, jobs, invoicing, payments, marketing, analytics, integrations, webhooks, workflows, and more. Almost no obvious gaps in the lifecycle of running a trade business.

Resources

Need Help?