Skip to main content
Glama

Check a fax

get_fax_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the person asks how their fax is doing, or to see whether it's ready to pay. It reads the fax from its status_url and returns its status, page count, price, payment and attempts. checkout_available is true once the person can pay on the status page. It changes nothing. While a fax is sending, call it at most once a minute.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
status_urlYesThe status_url create_fax returned, like https://www.faxette.com/f/abc123?token=xyz.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe fax's id. Pass it to get_fax when the person is signed in.
priceYesBefore tax. Null until the pages are counted.
statusYesdraft: waiting for files, or for a file to be fixed. processing_documents: counting pages. documents_ready: ready to pay. awaiting_payment: the person is paying. scheduled: paid, about to dial. sending, delivered, failed. canceled: not paid in time.
attemptYesThe current attempt to dial the fax number.
paymentYesThe person's payment once they start paying, by card or from their credit. amount_cents includes tax.
languageNo
resend_byYesFor a failed fax: until when the person can correct the fax number on the status page and send it again.
fax_numberYes
page_countYesNull until the pages are counted.
review_urlNoA private review link, valid for 30 minutes. Give it to the person so they can inspect the prepared PDF before paying.
status_urlYesThe page where the person checks the fax and pays. Give it to them.
max_attemptsYes
checkout_quoteNo
failure_reasonYesFor a failed fax: temporary (busy or no answer on every attempt), wrong_number (no fax machine answered), or our_side.
document_errorsYesFiles Faxette couldn't use. position is the file's number in the fax. The person fixes them on the status page.
next_attempt_atYesWhen the next attempt dials, if the line was busy or didn't answer.
checkout_availableYesTrue when the person can pay on the status page.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / checkout_quote
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": [
      +    "string",
      +    "null"
      +  ]
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / language
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": [
      +    "string",
      +    "null"
      +  ]
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / review_url
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "A private review link, valid for 30 minutes. Give it to the person so they can inspect the prepared PDF before paying.",
      +  "format": "uri",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: a polling limit ('while a fax is sending, call it at most once a minute') and the semantics of the checkout_available flag. 'It changes nothing' restates readOnlyHint, but the rate guidance is context annotations cannot express.

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 trigger condition is front-loaded in the first clause, and the four sentences each carry distinct information (when to call, what it returns, what the flag means, rate limits). 'It changes nothing' is mildly redundant with the annotations but not wasteful enough to penalize heavily.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to enumerate return values, and it still highlights the key one (checkout_available) plus the polling constraint. Only the lack of sibling disambiguation keeps it from a 5 for a single-parameter read tool.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description repeats the schema's note that status_url comes from create_fax. It adds no syntax, validation, or failure-mode detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('reads the fax from its status_url and returns its status, page count, price, payment and attempts'), which clearly states both the action and the returned resource. It does not explicitly contrast itself with near siblings like get_fax or get_fax_report, so the differentiation is implied by the status_url mechanism rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit trigger ('when the person asks how their fax is doing, or to see whether it's ready to pay') and explains that checkout_available gates payment. It does not name an alternative tool or say when not to use it, which keeps it just short of the top score.

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.