Skip to main content
Glama

Message a Business

send_message

Destructive

Send a message on behalf of an agent's user or an SMB across WhatsApp (free during launch), SMS, email, or voice. Five message types: transactional, reminder, follow_up, notification, marketing. Every send routes through a non-bypassable compliance gate (TCPA, GDPR, CASL, PDPL across 26 jurisdictions) that enforces opt-in consent for marketing/promotional content — marketing without recorded consent is rejected at runtime with a structured compliance_violation receipt. Channel is abstracted: specify intent and recipient; the service selects and falls back across channels.

EXAMPLE USER QUERIES THAT MATCH THIS TOOL: user: "Text the salon I'll be 10 minutes late" -> call send_message({"recipient": {"id_type": "smb_id", "id_value": "smb_xyz"}, "message_type": "notification", "content": {"body": "Running about 10 minutes late for my appointment."}, "preferred_channel": "sms"}) user: "Email the dentist about insurance" -> call send_message({"recipient": {"id_type": "email", "id_value": "front-desk@example-dental.com"}, "message_type": "transactional", "content": {"body": "Do you accept Cigna insurance?"}, "preferred_channel": "email"})

WHEN TO USE: Use to: (a) confirm a booking the agent just made, (b) reply to a customer who messaged the SMB first, (c) follow up on a quote the user requested, (d) send appointment reminders the SMB owes its customer, (e) send marketing messages to recipients who have opted in (with consent_record_id). The gate verifies consent on every send. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do NOT use for OTPs or critical transactional confirmations — use send_transactional_confirmation. Do NOT attempt to send marketing without a consent_record_id pointing at a real opt-in — the gate will reject the send and log a compliance_violation. Do NOT attempt bulk / list-based / drip / cold outreach — those are out of scope and the rate limiter will throttle abuse. COST: from $0.02 per_call_variable (see preview_cost for exact) LATENCY: ~800ms EXECUTION: sync_fast (use get_outcome to retrieve result)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYes
recipientYes
business_idNoOptional stable id for the recipient business. Enables global demand shaping (we rate-limit total inbound across ALL agents so businesses stay responsive instead of blocking us).
send_at_isoNoNOT SUPPORTED YET. We do not schedule messages. Supplying a time more than 2 minutes in the future is REFUSED (reason_code scheduling_not_supported) rather than sent immediately, which is what used to happen. Call send_message at the moment you want delivery, or omit this field.
message_typeYesIntent tag for the message. Five permitted types. 'marketing' is allowed only when paired with a valid consent_record_id; the compliance gate verifies the consent at send time and rejects (compliance_violation receipt) if it's missing, expired, or revoked.
on_behalf_ofNoWho this message is FOR (your end-user's name/label). On WhatsApp this opens a tracked conversation and travels in-message as '#4821 for Sara (via HatchLoop)', so the business knows who it is talking to and their reply is matched back to this exact request instead of guessed. Strongly recommended for two-way channels.
idempotency_keyNoOptional client-supplied key for safe retries. Replaying the same key within 24h returns the original receipt - the operation is NOT re-executed and NOT re-charged.
preferred_channelNoauto

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses the non-bypassable compliance gate, runtime rejection with a structured compliance_violation receipt, channel abstraction with fallback, the refusal of future send_at_iso values, cost, latency, and the need to call get_outcome for results. This gives the agent a strong mental model of the tool's side effects and failure modes.

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 long but well-structured with bold section headers (WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, COST, LATENCY, EXECUTION) and concrete examples. The front-loaded purpose sentence and scannable sections make the length acceptable, though a few details like the exact cost range could be deferred to preview_cost without losing essential information.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, compliance rules, and no output schema, the description covers usage constraints, channel behavior, scheduling limitations, and alternative tools. It does not describe the success receipt or the return shape from get_outcome, and the consent_record_id omission from the schema leaves a hole, but overall the agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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?

The description adds meaningful context to message_type (marketing requires consent), channel behavior, and compliance-related restrictions. However, it repeatedly references consent_record_id as a required input for marketing, yet this parameter does not appear anywhere in the input schema, creating a semantic mismatch. With 63% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves this gap unresolved.

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: 'Send a message on behalf of an agent's user or an SMB across WhatsApp, SMS, email, or voice,' and enumerates the five message types. It further distinguishes itself from the sibling tool send_transactional_confirmation by explicitly excluding OTPs and critical transactional confirmations. This makes the tool's scope and identity unambiguous.

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?

The dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections give concrete scenarios (booking confirmation, reply to customer, quote follow-up, reminders, opted-in marketing) and explicit exclusions with the named alternative send_transactional_confirmation. It also cautions against bulk/cold outreach, covering both positive and negative selection criteria.

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.

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.