d1jiema-mcp

d1jiema_send_sms

Send an SMS via D1Jiema to an authorized recipient with approved content; set confirm=true to proceed.

Instructions

Send an SMS through D1Jiema. Use only for an explicitly authorized recipient and content; set confirm=true.

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": {
      "phone": "<phone>",
      "to_phone": "<to_phone>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "d1jiema_send_sms"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`phone`	Yes
`confirm`	No
`content`	Yes
`proj_id`	No
`to_phone`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the confirm=true safety gate and the authorization precondition, which implies this is an irreversible outbound action requiring consent. It omits cost, rate limits, delivery failure behavior, and whether the recipient must already exist in the account.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action, constraint, and required flag all appear immediately.

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 irreversible outbound send with five undocumented parameters and zero annotation coverage, the description is too thin. The presence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but not from clarifying parameter roles and side effects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and it only explains 'confirm'. The critical ambiguity between 'phone' and 'to_phone' (sender/account number vs destination) is left entirely unaddressed, as is 'proj_id'.

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 (send an SMS) and names the platform, which separates it from read-side siblings like d1jiema_get_sms and d1jiema_history. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling d1jiema_request, which is the most plausible alternative for outbound messaging.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives a conditional ('only for an explicitly authorized recipient and content') and an invocation instruction ('set confirm=true'), which is real guidance. It stops short of stating when this tool should be preferred over d1jiema_request or what happens when the recipient is not pre-authorized.

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

Deploy Server