Skip to main content
Glama

Agent Broker

by io.github.basilalshukaili

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. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / send_at_iso / description
      Previous value: -"Schedule for future delivery; omit for immediate"New value: +"NOT 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."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / business_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional 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).",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / on_behalf_of
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Who 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.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / preferred_channel / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "sms",
-  "email",
-  "voice",
-  "auto"
-]New value: +[
+  "whatsapp",
+  "sms",
+  "email",
+  "voice",
+  "auto"
+]
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional 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.",
+  "maxLength": 128,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  5. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / message_type / description
      Previous value: -"Intent tag — must match the consumer-initiated transactional flow being completed. 'marketing' is not a permitted value; messages tagged as marketing are rejected by the compliance gate."New value: +"Intent 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."
    • changedInput schema / properties / message_type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "transactional",
-  "reminder",
-  "follow_up",
-  "notification"
-]New value: +[
+  "transactional",
+  "marketing",
+  "reminder",
+  "follow_up",
+  "notification"
+]
  6. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / message_type / description
      Added value: +"Intent tag — must match the consumer-initiated transactional flow being completed. 'marketing' is not a permitted value; messages tagged as marketing are rejected by the compliance gate."
    • changedInput schema / properties / message_type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "transactional",
-  "marketing",
-  "reminder",
-  "follow_up",
-  "notification"
-]New value: +[
+  "transactional",
+  "reminder",
+  "follow_up",
+  "notification"
+]
  7. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already signal a mutating, non-idempotent, open-world operation, but the description goes far beyond: it discloses the non-bypassable compliance gate, consent enforcement, channel fallback, rate limiting, scheduling refusal, idempotency replay behavior, cost, latency, and execution model. It even names the failure receipt type (compliance_violation).

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 headers, examples, and a front-loaded core statement. There is some repetition of the marketing-consent rule, but it reinforces a critical constraint rather than padding.

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?

For a complex 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers when to use, when not to use, compliance behavior, cost, latency, scheduling limits, and result retrieval via get_outcome. It does not fully specify the success response shape beyond mentioning receipts, so an agent still has to infer part of the return contract.

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?

With only 63% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: it explains message_type consent coupling, preferred_channel as an abstraction/fallback, send_at_iso refusal behavior, and on_behalf_of rationale. The two examples map recipient and content to realistic values, though parameters like template_id, template_vars, and business_id still rely on schema descriptions.

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 opening sentence names the action (send), the resource (message), the beneficiaries (agent's user or SMB), and the channels (WhatsApp, SMS, email, voice). It clearly distinguishes the tool from send_transactional_confirmation by explicitly excluding OTPs and critical transactional confirmations.

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?

The description provides an explicit WHEN TO USE list with five concrete scenarios and a WHEN NOT TO USE section that names the alternative tool and prohibitions. This gives an agent unambiguous routing guidance, including consent requirements and bulk-outreach restrictions.

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

All Agent Broker 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly differentiated targets (e.g., check_booking_link vs import_booking_url, get_status vs get_outcome), and the descriptions are unusually thorough. However, send_message and send_transactional_confirmation overlap because send_message already includes a 'transactional' message type, and verify_business vs verify_company_record are easy to confuse despite different scopes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 23 tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_*, get_*, send_*, verify_*), with no camelCase or stylistic drift. The verb uniformly precedes the object, making the surface predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count3/5

23 tools is on the heavy side for a single MCP server, spanning SMB communications, booking, compliance screening, trade lookup, and platform utilities. Each tool has a purpose, but the count pushes the set into the 16-25 borderline range and suggests scope creep.

Completeness3/5

Core workflows for booking, messaging, and compliance pre-flight are well covered, including async polling and cost preview. However, there are lifecycle gaps: capture_lead has no way to list/update/retrieve leads, and business records support import/verify but no update/delete. The trade/company-verification tools also feel disconnected from the main SMB flow.

Resources