Estimate Cost
post_estimate_costEstimate Cost Billing per call: 0 Credits.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | JSON request body. Example: {"target":"+44 7459 034784"} |
sms-verify
by com.jojapi
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
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.
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.