send_message
Send a message (Email, SMS, WhatsApp)
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| subject | No | ||
| contactId | Yes |
0nMCP — Universal AI API Orchestrator
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only restates the action 'Send a message' without disclosing side effects, permissions, delivery guarantees, or failure modes. It adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the action verb, containing no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a 4-parameter, multi-channel tool, making it borderline between appropriate terseness and insufficient detail.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a competing sibling tool, the description is not complete enough for an agent to select and invoke this tool safely. It lacks usage context, behavioral details, and parameter guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for parameter meanings. It only lists the three channels, which overlaps with the 'type' enum, but provides no explanation of 'contactId', 'subject', or 'message' semantics or optionality.
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 resource ('message'), and enumerates supported channels (Email, SMS, WhatsApp), which specifies scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'send_email' tool, so it falls short of full distinction.
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 the sibling 'send_email', nor when to prefer one channel over another. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative references, which is a significant gap given the overlapping sibling.
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
B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct actions (create/get/update/search for contacts, opportunities, etc.). However, send_email overlaps with send_message which explicitly supports email, and verify_service is an outlier unrelated to the CRM-focused tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_contact, get_pipelines, send_message). The naming is predictable and uniform across the entire set.
Tool Count3/5
17 tools is at the heavy end for a CRM-focused server, and the 'Universal AI API Orchestrator' name suggests broader capabilities than the actual tool set. The count is not extreme but feels slightly over-scoped for what is offered.
Completeness3/5
Contact and opportunity management cover create/read/update/search with additional note/tag features, but there are no delete operations for contacts or opportunities, and appointment creation is missing. The verify_service tool adds an unrelated capability, leaving some CRM lifecycle gaps.