MNotify MCP Server

by Nanayeb34

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

send_bulk_group_sms

Send SMS messages to all contacts in specified groups, with optional scheduling for future delivery.

Instructions

Send an SMS to all contacts in one or more groups.

Provide group_id list and a message (≤ 460 chars). For scheduling, set schedule=true and supply schedule_time (YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "send_bulk_group_sms"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`groups`	No
`message`	No
`group_id`	No
`schedule`	No
`sender_id`	No
`group_names`	No
`schedule_time`	No
`verify_sender`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jun 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the message length limit (≤460 chars) but does not cover other important aspects like cost, queueing, rate limits, or potential impact (e.g., sending to many contacts). Insufficient transparency for a bulk messaging tool.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose (first sentence) and provide specific usage details (second sentence). No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output details despite presence of output schema), the description is incomplete. It omits explanations of several parameters, potential return values, and important behavioral context like concurrency or limits.

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 0%. The description explains group_id, message, schedule, and schedule_time (4 of 8 parameters). It does not explain groups, group_names, sender_id, or verify_sender, leaving ambiguity about their roles. Partial compensation but not comprehensive.

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?

The description clearly states the action: sending an SMS to contacts in one or more groups, and specifies key inputs (group_id and message). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like send_quick_bulk_sms, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage context: provide group_id and message, and for scheduling set schedule=true and supply schedule_time. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is actionable.

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