Send SMS messages to one or more phone numbers through Google Voice. Use it to deliver text alerts, notifications, or messages from an automated Google Voice session.
Send a new SMS message to one or more phone numbers via Google Voice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The message text to send. | |
| phone_number | Yes | The recipient phone number(s) (e.g., "+1234567890" or ["+1234567890", "+0987654321"]). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses no behavioral traits beyond the bare action. It does not say whether side effects are immediate and irreversible, what happens if one of several recipients fails, whether rate limits or per-message costs apply, or what result is returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is a single well-formed sentence with the action and channel front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the disclosure gaps rather than a virtue of tight editing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the core action is adequately covered. However, with zero annotations the definition should at least note the authentication prerequisite and the outcome of a multi-recipient send to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with types and an example. The phrase "one or more phone numbers" usefully reinforces the multi-recipient semantics of the oneOf schema but adds no format or validation detail beyond it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Send a new SMS message") plus the delivery channel ("Google Voice") and the recipient scope ("one or more phone numbers"). The word "new" implicitly separates it from gv_reply_sms, but no sibling is named explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing states that this is for starting a conversation rather than continuing one (gv_reply_sms), and no prerequisite such as authenticating via gv_login/gv_check_login is mentioned. Usage is only weakly inferable from the word "new".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.