Skip to main content
Glama

SMS and WhatsApp Messaging

by dev.hatchloop

verify_business

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up what we know about a business in our supply network: its contact channels, capabilities, and when the record was last verified. This is a DIRECTORY LOOKUP - it does not contact the business.

EXAMPLE USER QUERIES THAT MATCH THIS TOOL: user: "Confirm smb_imp_abc actually does emergency plumbing" -> call verify_business({"smb_id": "smb_imp_abc", "capability_to_verify": "emergency_plumbing"})

WHEN TO USE: Use before sending communications or scheduling if you have an unverified SMB identifier, or if the agent's task requires confirmed capability (e.g., 'I need to be sure they do emergency plumbing'). WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use if the SMB was returned from find_business within the last 24 hours — those results are already verified. COST: free - no key required LATENCY: ~500ms

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
smb_idYes
capability_to_verifyNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by stating the tool performs no external contact, lists the kinds of data returned, and notes that no key is required. There is no contradiction with the readOnlyHint.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses compact labeled sections for example, usage, cost, and latency. Every section adds decision-relevant information without redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-parameter read-only lookup, the description covers what the tool returns, when to call it, when not to call it, and even cost/latency. No output schema exists, but the description gives enough return-value context for an agent to act.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides one clear example mapping a user request to smb_id and capability_to_verify, but it does not formally define the expected values or optionality of capability_to_verify beyond the schema.

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?

Description begins with a specific verb and resource ('Look up what we know about a business in our supply network'), clarifies it is a directory lookup that does not contact the business, and includes a concrete example query. This makes it easy to distinguish from the contact-oriented siblings and from find_business.

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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections give actionable selection criteria, including the exact condition under which find_business should be used instead (results returned within last 24 hours). This is stronger than typical usage guidance.

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

All SMS and WhatsApp Messaging toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

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.

Resources