Skip to main content
Glama

TaScan

by io.github.snowbikemike

tascan_send_sms

Send a transactional TaScan SMS text to a worker (by worker_id, using their phone on file) or to a raw phone number. Optionally attach a task list — the recipient gets a tap-to-open checklist link. Sends from TaScan's carrier-registered A2P number (or the org's own Twilio if BYOK). Counts against the org's monthly SMS quota unless BYOK. Messages are auto-prefixed with "TaScan:" per carrier registration; transactional/work-related content only, no marketing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
phoneNoRaw phone number (e.g. "+17025551234") — used when no worker_id given
list_idNoOptional task list ID — appends a tap-to-open worker checklist link
messageYesMessage text. Transactional and work-related only.
worker_idNoWorker ID — sends to their phone on file (preferred over raw phone)
include_linkNoWhen a list_id is given, append the tap-to-open link to the SMS body (default true). Set false to send the message text alone — the link is still returned for you to share another way.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses the sender identity (A2P or BYOK Twilio), quota impact, automatic 'TaScan:' prefix, and content policy restrictions. These are exactly the side-effect and constraint details an agent needs and that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

The description is information-dense yet clearly structured: it opens with the core purpose, then covers the optional list-link behavior, followed by sender/quota constraints. Every sentence contributes useful operational knowledge without redundancy.

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?

The description covers destination selection, optional link behavior, sender infrastructure, quota, prefixing, and content policy. It doesn't explicitly describe the full return value (e.g., an SMS ID), though it mentions the link is returned when include_link is false. Given no output schema, a brief note about the response would make it fully complete, but the current information is largely sufficient.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: worker_id is preferred over raw phone, list_id appends a tap-to-open link, and include_link controls whether the link is embedded or just returned. This goes beyond the schema field descriptions and clarifies selection and behavior.

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 clearly states the tool sends a transactional TaScan SMS to either a worker_id or a raw phone number, which is specific and actionable. It also distinguishes itself from related tools like tascan_send_task_email by focusing on SMS text with optional task-list links.

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?

The description gives strong context for when to use this tool: for transactional/work-related SMS to workers or raw numbers, with optional checklist links. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the 'transactional only, no marketing' rule and BYOK/quota details help an agent decide when this is appropriate.

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

All TaScan 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map to a distinct resource+action pair, and the descriptions clearly separate entities like tasks, subtasks, workers, invoices, zones, assets, and reports. A few close pairs (get_report vs generate_report, dispatch_instruction vs dispatch_to_agent, analyze_issue vs auto_resolve) require careful reading, but the descriptions are detailed enough to disambiguate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority follow a tascan_verb_noun pattern with consistent create/get/list/update/delete verbs. Minor deviations like condition_history, server_info, zone_compliance, and one-word find slightly break the otherwise predictable pattern.

Tool Count1/5

At 69 tools, this is far beyond what an agent can efficiently consider, and it bundles several distinct domains into one MCP surface. Even if each tool is individually useful, the combined set is an extreme mismatch for a coherent tool interface.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers nearly the full lifecycle for projects, events, tasks, subtasks, workers, reports, invoices, zones, assets, issues, and communications. Minor gaps exist (no explicit asset updates/decommissioning, no cancel_invite, no delete_zone), but the main workflows have no dead ends.

Resources