Send SMS messages from an internal extension through Mango Office cloud PBX to any phone number.
Отправить SMS через Mango Office.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Текст сообщения | |
| to_number | Yes | Номер получателя | |
| from_extension | Yes | Внутренний номер отправителя |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that SMS is sent, but does not mention any side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens on failure. It is a mutating operation (send) but gives no additional behavioral context beyond the literal action.
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?
The description is very short, which is concise, but it essentially restates the tool name ('Send SMS') without adding value. It is not verbose, yet it does not earn its place because it provides almost no information beyond the name. It is appropriately sized but under-specified.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return value or success/failure indication, but it does not. It also lacks context about using Mango Office, any prerequisites, or how this fits into the broader set of sibling tools. For a simple send operation, it misses key contextual details that an agent would need.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for each, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The parameter names and descriptions are sufficient, so the description does not need to compensate.
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 clearly states the verb 'Send' and the resource 'SMS via Mango Office', making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like make_call, which could be a similar operation. It's a clear but not fully distinguishing description.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where another tool (e.g., make_call) would be more appropriate. The description provides no context for the agent to choose this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.