Sautikit

desk_send_sms

Sends an outbound SMS from SautiDesk.

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": "desk_send_sms"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	recipient E.164 phone number
`body`	Yes	SMS text body
`purpose`	No	Required on tools that read data or reports; recommended on every tool. One sentence: what you are doing and why (for example "finding this caller's open ticket to answer them"). Building a report, dashboard, analytics or an export is a SautiDesk Pro feature done by the report tools, not by pulling records.
`sender_id`	No	optional approved SMS sender ID of the workspace
`ticket_id`	No	optional ticket UUID to attach the outbound SMS to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description must carry the rest of the behavioral burden for an outbound, externally-visible action. It says nothing about delivery confirmation, message IDs, per-message cost, rate limits, or failure modes for invalid E.164 numbers. 'Outbound' is the only added signal, and it is thin.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient rather than padded, though its brevity edges toward under-specification for a tool with five parameters and external side effects.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For an outbound-sending tool with five parameters, no output schema, and only minimal annotations, the description is too thin. It leaves open what the call returns, whether sender_id is required for certain workspaces, and how ticket_id attachment behaves — all things an agent needs before invoking it.

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% across all five parameters, including the E.164 format for 'to' and the approved-sender-ID constraint. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Sends an outbound SMS.' An agent can tell this is a messaging send operation, and 'outbound' scopes the direction. It does not, however, distinguish itself from channel siblings such as desk_send_message, desk_send_dm, or send_whatsapp_message, so channel selection still requires inference.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance is given. The description never says when SMS is the right channel versus desk_send_message or send_whatsapp_message, nor does it mention prerequisites like an approved sender ID or opt-in requirements. The agent is left to guess based on the tool name alone.

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

All Sautikit 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?