Skip to main content
Glama

SMS and WhatsApp Messaging

send_message

Destructive

Send a message on behalf of an agent's user or an SMB across WhatsApp (free during launch), SMS, email, or voice. Five message types: transactional, reminder, follow_up, notification, marketing. Every send routes through a non-bypassable compliance gate (TCPA, GDPR, CASL, PDPL across 26 jurisdictions) that enforces opt-in consent for marketing/promotional content — marketing without recorded consent is rejected at runtime with a structured compliance_violation receipt. Channel is abstracted: specify intent and recipient; the service selects and falls back across channels.

EXAMPLE USER QUERIES THAT MATCH THIS TOOL: user: "Text the salon I'll be 10 minutes late" -> call send_message({"recipient": {"id_type": "smb_id", "id_value": "smb_xyz"}, "message_type": "notification", "content": {"body": "Running about 10 minutes late for my appointment."}, "preferred_channel": "sms"}) user: "Email the dentist about insurance" -> call send_message({"recipient": {"id_type": "email", "id_value": "front-desk@example-dental.com"}, "message_type": "transactional", "content": {"body": "Do you accept Cigna insurance?"}, "preferred_channel": "email"})

WHEN TO USE: Use to: (a) confirm a booking the agent just made, (b) reply to a customer who messaged the SMB first, (c) follow up on a quote the user requested, (d) send appointment reminders the SMB owes its customer, (e) send marketing messages to recipients who have opted in (with consent_record_id). The gate verifies consent on every send. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do NOT use for OTPs or critical transactional confirmations — use send_transactional_confirmation. Do NOT attempt to send marketing without a consent_record_id pointing at a real opt-in — the gate will reject the send and log a compliance_violation. Do NOT attempt bulk / list-based / drip / cold outreach — those are out of scope and the rate limiter will throttle abuse. COST: from $0.02 per_call_variable (see preview_cost for exact) LATENCY: ~800ms EXECUTION: sync_fast (use get_outcome to retrieve result)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYes
recipientYes
business_idNoOptional stable id for the recipient business. Enables global demand shaping (we rate-limit total inbound across ALL agents so businesses stay responsive instead of blocking us).
send_at_isoNoNOT SUPPORTED YET. We do not schedule messages. Supplying a time more than 2 minutes in the future is REFUSED (reason_code scheduling_not_supported) rather than sent immediately, which is what used to happen. Call send_message at the moment you want delivery, or omit this field.
message_typeYesIntent tag for the message. Five permitted types. 'marketing' is allowed only when paired with a valid consent_record_id; the compliance gate verifies the consent at send time and rejects (compliance_violation receipt) if it's missing, expired, or revoked.
on_behalf_ofNoWho this message is FOR (your end-user's name/label). On WhatsApp this opens a tracked conversation and travels in-message as '#4821 for Sara (via HatchLoop)', so the business knows who it is talking to and their reply is matched back to this exact request instead of guessed. Strongly recommended for two-way channels.
idempotency_keyNoOptional client-supplied key for safe retries. Replaying the same key within 24h returns the original receipt - the operation is NOT re-executed and NOT re-charged.
preferred_channelNoauto

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the basic annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true): every send passes a non-bypassable compliance gate, marketing without consent is rejected with a compliance_violation receipt, channel selection is abstracted with automatic fallback, future scheduling more than 2 minutes out is refused, and execution is sync_fast with results fetched via get_outcome. These behavioral traits materially shape how an agent should invoke the tool and are not present in the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 long but well-structured with labeled sections (EXAMPLE USER QUERIES, WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, COST, LATENCY, EXECUTION) and front-loads the core function. Most sections earn their place, though the compliance gate is described twice and the 'free during launch' phrasing may age poorly. For a tool with this compliance complexity, the length is largely justified rather than bloated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and significant compliance constraints, the description is thorough: it covers acceptable use, forbidden use, cost, latency, execution mode, and failure behavior (compliance_violation receipt), and points to preview_cost and get_outcome for follow-up. The primary gap is the missing consent_record_id in the schema despite the description making it essential for marketing sends, which creates actionable confusion for the agent.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 63%, so the description must add semantic value, and it does: it explains message_type intent and the consent requirement for 'marketing', clarifies that preferred_channel can be 'auto' with channel fallback, and documents send_at_iso as unsupported/refused. The two example invocations map real parameter values to user queries. However, the description references a consent_record_id that is not present in the input schema, leaving the agent uncertain how to supply it, and some parameters (template_id, template_vars, idempotency_key) rely solely on schema descriptions. It compensates meaningfully but not completely.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Send a message on behalf of an agent's user or an SMB across WhatsApp... SMS, email, or voice'), enumerates five message types, and includes concrete example invocations. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from send_transactional_confirmation by explicitly excluding OTPs/critical transactional confirmations, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

There are dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections. The former lists five concrete scenarios (booking confirmation, replying to a customer, follow-up, reminders, opted-in marketing); the latter explicitly names send_transactional_confirmation for OTPs/critical confirmations, forbids un-consented marketing, and excludes bulk/cold outreach. This is exactly the explicit when/when-not/alternatives guidance the dimension asks for.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct roles: compliance preflight, messaging, transactional sends, directory lookup, conversation/status/outcome retrieval, cost preview, and health check. The main ambiguity is between send_message and send_transactional_confirmation, both of which can handle booking confirmations and transactional message types, though the descriptions do provide guardrails.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: check_compliance, find_business, get_conversation, get_outcome, get_status, preview_cost, send_message, verify_business. Even longer names like send_transactional_confirmation stay within the same convention. No mixed casing or inconsistent verb styles.

Tool Count5/5

10 tools is well-scoped for a business messaging platform. Each tool covers a distinct aspect: search/verify businesses, check compliance, send messages, preview costs, and inspect async results. The count is neither bloated nor thin for the stated purpose.

Completeness4/5

The core workflows are covered: find/verify a business, check compliance, send messages, retrieve conversations, and get operation outcomes. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool for managing consent records and no webhook configuration tool, but agents can still complete primary messaging tasks without dead ends.