Skip to main content
Glama

send_sms

Send an SMS text message from your TextForAgents number.

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>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "send_sms"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesDestination phone number in E.164 format, e.g. +18185550199.
bodyYesThe message text to send.
from_numberNoYour TextForAgents number to send from; defaults to your account's assigned number.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 and does not meet it. For a side-effecting tool that sends a real message potentially costing money and cannot be recalled, it says nothing about delivery timing, failure behavior, rate limits, or message-length constraints.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource appear immediately. Nothing in it is redundant with the schema or wasteful.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Parameters are fully covered by the schema and there is no output schema to explain, so the structural side is complete. However, for a side-effecting messaging tool with no annotations, the absence of any note on delivery, cost, or failure handling leaves a meaningful gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters documented including E.164 formatting and the default for from_number, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not clarify number ownership rules or whether the from number must belong to the account.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Send an SMS text message') plus the sending identity ('from your TextForAgents number'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from get_balance and read_inbox. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it does not earn a 5.

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 only implied by the verb 'send' — there is no statement of when to use this versus another channel, no preconditions (e.g. verified number, opt-in), and no exclusions. An agent can infer the basic situation, but nothing is spelled out.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources