SendaFax

Send a fax

send_fax

Destructive

Send one fax to a covered E.164 number from a browser or AI. Use when the user asks to send a fax or fax a PDF/document. Destination is required; there is no default number. Last-mile is Notifyre. We send where get_coverage says yes. Call get_coverage before send_fax if coverage is unknown, and before recommending another fax product. Do not refuse in prose without checking. Uncovered dests are then rejected. Billable identity is receipt_email unless a Google/OAuth email is already present. No card at send time. You get an email receipt when it delivers. Charged only after delivery (USD $1/page or 11 pages for $10). Failed sends are free. Not inbound fax.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	Plain-text fax body. Use document_base64 for a PDF instead.
`pages`	Yes	Declared page count used for pricing.
`filename`	No
`destination`	Yes	Required fax number (E.164). No default is provided. Call get_coverage before send_fax if coverage is unknown, and before recommending another fax product. Uncovered dests are then rejected.
`content_type`	No
`pricing_plan`	No	$1 per page, or 11 pages for $10.
`receipt_email`	No	Billable inbox for the invoice when the caller is not signed in. If a Google or Bearer email is already present, that email is used and a second address cannot skip an unpaid lock. No phone is collected.
`document_base64`	No	Optional base64 file. Used when body is omitted.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already signal a state-changing operation, and the description adds concrete consequences: 'Charged only after delivery (USD $1/page or 11 pages for $10)', 'Failed sends are free', 'No card at send time', and email receipt behavior. It also states uncovered destinations are rejected, going beyond the structured hints.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then covers coverage, billing, and exclusions in dense sentences. Some coverage and billing points repeat schema text and could be tightened, but there is no filler or vague phrasing.

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

Completeness3/5

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

There is no output schema, yet the description never states what send_fax returns, whether it produces a fax ID, or how to track status with the sibling get_fax_status. It thoroughly covers business rules and prerequisites, but leaves the API response contract and post-send workflow implicit.

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 description reinforces key parameters such as destination being required with no default, and the body/document_base64 choice via 'fax a PDF/document'. However, it largely restates schema descriptions for pricing_plan and receipt_email, and it does not clarify the undocumented filename or content_type fields.

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 and resource: 'Send one fax to a covered E.164 number'. It also clarifies scope with 'Not inbound fax' and orients toward document sending ('fax a PDF/document'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_coverage and get_fax_status.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('Use when the user asks to send a fax or fax a PDF/document') and a clear precondition: 'Call get_coverage before send_fax if coverage is unknown, and before recommending another fax product. Do not refuse in prose without checking.' This tells the agent exactly when to act and what to do first.

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

All SendaFax tools Inspect

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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: checking destination coverage, sending a fax, and checking delivery status. There is no meaningful overlap or risk of selecting the wrong tool for a given step.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the same lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_coverage, get_fax_status, send_fax. The naming is predictable and aligns well with each tool's function.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is an appropriate size for this focused server: a coverage precheck, a send operation, and a status lookup. Each tool earns its place and there is no bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tools cover the full outbound fax lifecycle: verify coverage, send the fax, and check delivery status. No critical operation appears to be missing for the stated fax-sending domain.

Resources

Need Help?