F
licenseC
qualityD
maintenanceMCP server for accessing Sms Verify3 API to send numeric verification codes and estimate costs.
1
-
sms-verify
by com.jojapi
Server Details
SMS Verify: SMS Verify API is a secure and easy-to-integrate service that sends verification codes.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
2 toolspost_estimate_costEstimate CostDInspect
Estimate Cost Billing per call: 0 Credits.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | JSON request body. Example: {"target":"+44 7459 034784"} |
TDQS
D1.9/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any side effects, required permissions, or behavioral expectations. It is purely a label without explanatory content.
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 extremely brief, which is concise but lacks substantive content. It is a single sentence, but it does not provide enough information to be considered well-structured or front-loaded.
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?
Given no output schema and minimal description, the tool's purpose and input requirements are unclear. The example hint is the only useful context, but it is insufficient for full understanding.
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?
The schema includes a single 'body' object with an example showing 'target' as a phone number. This provides some clue about the expected input, but the description does not explain the meaning or purpose of 'target' or any other potential fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description only states 'Estimate Cost' but does not clarify what kind of cost or for what service. It fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'post_send_numeric_verify' in terms of purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 alternatives. The description lacks any context about scenarios or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
post_send_numeric_verifySend Verify SMSCInspect
Send Verify SMS Billing per call: Credits: metered.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | JSON request body. Example: {"target":"+44 7459 034784"} |
TDQS
C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The only extra information is 'Billing per call: Credits: metered,' which hints at cost but is cryptic. It does not state side effects (e.g., sends an actual SMS, may incur charges), whether it is destructive (e.g., consumes credits), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and fails to carry the burden of transparency.
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 extremely short (one sentence plus a billing note). It is concise, but the billing note is incomplete and confusing ('Credits: metered' is not a standard phrase). There is no additional structure or bullet points; the description front-loads the purpose but fails to use the space effectively. Every word should add value, but much is wasted.
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?
Given a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should clarify behavior and edge cases. It only mentions metered credits, leaving out whether the SMS is actually sent, what the response contains, error conditions, and consent/privacy requirements. The tool is simple, but the description is incomplete for safe invocation.
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?
The input schema has only one parameter 'body' with a description that includes an example ('target': '+44...'), which already provides clear semantics (JSON request body with a target phone number). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter information; it relies entirely on the schema. The example is helpful, so no deduction is made.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description restates the tool name ('Send Verify SMS') without specifying the action beyond sending a verification SMS. It is not a tautology, but it is vague—no indication of what 'verify' means, what the SMS contains, or the scope (e.g., phone number verification). It does not distinguish from sibling (post_estimate_cost), as 'verify' likely refers to a verification code being sent. The purpose is under-specified. The description is a near-verbatim repetition of the title, offering no specific verb+resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no context on when to use this tool versus the estimate cost sibling. It does not mention typical use cases (e.g., sending a verification code during signup) or conditions under which it should not be used. It lacks any indication of alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent without guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
2 tool updates
- First observed
post_estimate_cost - First observed
post_send_numeric_verify
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Send SMS/WhatsApp and verify OTP codes in Morocco (+212) and worldwide. Direct carrier routing.
Send and schedule SMS and WhatsApp messages, manage contacts and templates, and track delivery.
Virtual phone numbers for SMS verification, OTP receipt, and number management.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceMCP server for SMS verification — get virtual phone numbers, receive OTP codes, and manage verifications for 500+ services across 50+ countries via the VirtualSMS API.181088MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceSend and verify one-time passcodes over SMS, WhatsApp and Telegram from any MCP client. Ten tools: send, verify, extend, delivery status, account, usage report, and agent account creation with credit top-ups over a 402. Hosted endpoint or run locally.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables sending SMS, querying delivery reports, and managing senders and blacklists through the iletiMerkezi SMS API.11342MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one estimates cost while the other sends a verification code. There is no overlap or possibility of confusion.
Naming Consistency4/5
Both names use a consistent 'post_' prefix and snake_case, making the pattern predictable. However, 'send_numeric_verify' uses 'verify' as a noun, which is slightly awkward but still clear.
Tool Count3/5
With only two tools, the server feels minimal. This is on the low end of what might be considered acceptable, though it could be sufficient for a very narrow use case.
Completeness2/5
The server lacks a critical operation: verifying the code sent via SMS. A user can send a code and estimate cost, but the core function of confirming the code is missing, leaving the workflow incomplete.