Skip to main content
Glama

Message a Business

by dev.hatchloop

check_compliance

Read-onlyIdempotent

Free, instant pre-flight for the compliance gate. Runs the SAME TCPA / GDPR / CASL / CAN-SPAM / 10DLC gate that send_message and call_business run — but in preview mode, so NO message is sent and NO state changes. Tells you whether a (recipient, channel, message_type, content) send would be permitted BEFORE you pay for it, and if not, names the exact rule and how to remediate. Use it to de-risk a paid send the same way check_booking_link de-risks a paid booking.

EXAMPLE USER QUERIES THAT MATCH THIS TOOL: user: "Is it legal to text this US number a 20%-off promo?" -> call check_compliance({"recipient_id": "+14045550200", "content": "20% off this week only!", "channel": "sms", "message_type": "marketing", "country_code": "US"}) user: "Before you email the dentist, make sure it's allowed" -> call check_compliance({"recipient_id": "office@dentist.example", "content": "Do you accept Cigna? Following up on my request.", "message_type": "follow_up"}) -> then send_message({"recipient": {"id_type": "email", "id_value": "office@dentist.example"}, "message_type": "follow_up", "content": {"body": "Do you accept Cigna? Following up on my request."}})

WHEN TO USE: Call this the moment before send_message or call_business when there is any chance the send is regulated — anything tagged marketing, any SMS to a US number (10DLC), any message to an EU/UK (GDPR) or Canadian (CASL) recipient, or any content you are unsure about. It is free and sub-100ms, so run it as a guard: if legal=true, proceed to send_message with confidence; if legal=false, fix the cited blocker instead of burning a paid, rejected send. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not treat a legal=true as a permanent license — the gate re-runs at send time, so a fresh opt-out between preview and send still blocks. Do not use it to check two-party voice recording consent (that is evaluated at call time in the voice adapter, not here). It is not a substitute for send_message; it never delivers anything. COST: free - no key required LATENCY: ~15ms

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
channelNoDelivery channel. Omit to auto-infer sms/email from recipient_id; set 'voice' explicitly.
contentYesThe actual message body you intend to send. The gate classifies the real text, so a meaningful preview needs the real content.
state_codeNoUS state code (e.g. 'CA') for state-specific rules.
country_codeNoISO 3166-1 alpha-2 (e.g. 'US', 'DE', 'CA'). Auto-inferred from phone if omitted; drives which jurisdiction rules apply.
message_typeNoIntent tag: transactional, marketing, reminder, follow_up, notification. 'marketing' triggers the consent checks. Defaults to transactional.transactional
recipient_idYesPhone in E.164 (e.g. '+14045550100') or email address the message would go to.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses more than the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations: it explicitly says no message is sent and no state changes, that it is free and sub-100ms, that the same gate re-runs at send time, that it does not check voice recording consent, and that it never delivers anything. This gives the agent an accurate mental model of the tool's behavior.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and well organized with WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, COST, LATENCY, and examples. It is slightly padded by duplicating cost/latency info and referencing check_booking_link, a non-sibling tool, but the examples and clear sections earn their length.

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 6-param regulated-send tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates: it explains the outcome semantics (legal=true/false, named rule, remediation), runtime behavior, cost, latency, and exact usage boundaries. An agent has everything it needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 covers all 6 parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical value with concrete example calls showing how to populate recipient_id, content, channel, message_type, and country_code, and when to omit auto-inferrable fields. It also demonstrates chaining to send_message after a successful check, which helps an agent correctly invoke the tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it runs the exact TCPA/GDPR/CASL/CAN-SPAM/10DLC compliance gate used by send_message and call_business, but in preview mode with no side effects. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming send_message and call_business and framing itself as a pre-flight check.

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?

Provides explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections, names the exact follow-up tools (send_message, call_business), and gives exclusions such as two-party recording consent. It also warns that legal=true is not permanent because the gate re-runs at send time, which is essential guidance.

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

All Message a Business toolsInspect
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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct roles: compliance preflight, messaging, transactional sends, directory lookup, conversation/status/outcome retrieval, cost preview, and health check. The main ambiguity is between send_message and send_transactional_confirmation, both of which can handle booking confirmations and transactional message types, though the descriptions do provide guardrails.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: check_compliance, find_business, get_conversation, get_outcome, get_status, preview_cost, send_message, verify_business. Even longer names like send_transactional_confirmation stay within the same convention. No mixed casing or inconsistent verb styles.

Tool Count5/5

10 tools is well-scoped for a business messaging platform. Each tool covers a distinct aspect: search/verify businesses, check compliance, send messages, preview costs, and inspect async results. The count is neither bloated nor thin for the stated purpose.

Completeness4/5

The core workflows are covered: find/verify a business, check compliance, send messages, retrieve conversations, and get operation outcomes. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool for managing consent records and no webhook configuration tool, but agents can still complete primary messaging tasks without dead ends.

Resources