Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Arsel MCP Server

Arsel MCP Server

Official
by Arsel-SA
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Send SMS

send-sms
Destructive

Send a transactional SMS to up to 100 numbers in one country after previewing the message and getting user approval. Confirm delivery with list-sms-messages.

Instructions

Send a transactional SMS, such as a one-time code or a delivery update, to up to 100 numbers in one country. Each number is billed per part: 70 characters for Arabic or emoji text, 160 for Latin. This reaches real people, and a message that has gone out cannot be recalled. Before calling it, show the user what will go out and to whom, and wait for their go-ahead. See what was sent with list-sms-messages.

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": {
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "send-sms"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesE.164 mobile numbers, e.g. +966512345678, all in the same country.
fromYesApproved sender name, 3-11 characters, from list-sms-senders. It must be approved for the recipients' country.
contentYesMessage text, up to 10 parts. Supports `{{key}}` placeholders.
categoryNoLabel for grouping in analytics, e.g. `order_update` or `otp`.
variablesNoValues for `{{key}}` placeholders in the content.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.2.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description reinforces it in plain language ("reaches real people, and a message that has gone out cannot be recalled") and adds cost mechanics — per-part billing at 70 characters for Arabic/emoji and 160 for Latin — that no annotation or schema field expresses. It stops short of disclosing delivery latency, error responses, or sender-approval failure behavior.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then cost mechanics, then the consent rule, then the follow-up tool. Nothing is restated from the title and no sentence is filler.

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?

Covers purpose, cost, consent, and audit routing for a five-parameter, non-idempotent, destructive tool with no output schema. It never says what a successful call returns (message IDs? per-recipient status?) or how unapproved senders or partial failures surface, which an agent needs to report results back to a user.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by explaining the encoding-dependent character partitions that drive both billing and the schema's "up to 10 parts" limit, which turns a bare constraint into actionable guidance for composing content.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Send a transactional SMS") plus scope (up to 100 numbers, one country) and example use cases (one-time code, delivery update). The word "transactional" implicitly separates it from the campaign siblings, and it points to list-sms-messages for the read-back path, so an agent can place it without opening another schema.

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?

Gives an explicit call-time prerequisite: show the user the content and recipients and wait for their go-ahead, plus a pointer to list-sms-messages for verification afterward. What it lacks is an explicit when-not to use it (e.g. bulk marketing traffic belongs in send-sms-campaign), which is left for the agent to infer from "transactional".

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools