seven-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

send_rcs

Send Rich Communication Services (RCS) messages with text, media, quick replies, and custom tracking. Specify recipient, content, and optional parameters for delayed sending and performance monitoring.

Instructions

Send an RCS (Rich Communication Services) message

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": {
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "send_rcs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Recipient phone number
`text`	No	Message text content
`media`	No	URL to media file (image, video, etc.)
`suggestions`	No	Quick reply suggestions
`orientation`	No	Media orientation
`from`	No	Sender identifier
`foreign_id`	No	Custom ID for tracking
`delay`	No	Delayed sending timestamp (Unix timestamp or ISO 8601)
`ttl`	No	Time to live in minutes
`label`	No	Custom label for the message
`performance_tracking`	No	Enable performance tracking

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1May 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as carrier dependency, fallback behavior, or rate limits. It only says 'send an RCS message' without further context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, efficient and to the point, but it could incorporate more useful information without becoming verbose.

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 11 parameters and lack of output schema/annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the interplay between parameters like media and orientation, or any sending constraints.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable but not enhanced.

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 (send) and the resource (RCS message), distinguishing it from siblings like send_sms and send_voice. However, it lacks details on what RCS enables over SMS, which could be more explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as send_sms or send_voice. There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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