seven-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

send_voice

Convert text to speech and deliver it as a voice call to one or more phone numbers. Send automated voice messages directly to recipients.

Instructions

Send a voice call with text-to-speech

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>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "send_voice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Recipient phone number(s)
`text`	Yes	Text to be converted to speech
`from`	No	Caller ID
`xml`	No	Use XML for advanced voice features
`debug`	No	Enable debug mode
`ringtime`	No	Ring time in seconds before timeout
`foreign_id`	No	Custom ID for tracking

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1May 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states basic action, omitting details like async behavior, call failure handling, cost implications, or any side effects.

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?

Single sentence is efficient and front-loaded. Slightly sparse but acceptable for high coverage schema. Could add a second sentence without harming conciseness.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. Lacks details on return values, error scenarios, or behavioral nuances for a voice call tool.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, earning baseline 3.

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?

The description 'Send a voice call with text-to-speech' clearly identifies the tool's action (send), resource (voice call), and specific modality (text-to-speech). It distinguishes well from siblings like send_sms or send_rcs.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., send_sms, hangup_voice). The description lacks context for appropriate usage or exclusions.

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