sms-verify

Send Verify SMS

post_send_numeric_verify

Sends a six-digit verification code to a phone number by SMS and returns the code, so you can compare it with what the user types. The message reads 123-456 is your verification code. Don't share. The request is charged the message's cost in credits (cost), which depends on the destination country and carrier; a message that would cost more than 10,000 credits is not sent (max_cost_exceeded). Failed requests are not charged. Group: Verification. Billing per call: Credits: metered (~518.21 avg).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	No	JSON request body.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 19, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / body / description

Previous value: -"JSON request body. Example: {\"target\":\"+44 7459 034784\"}"New value: +"JSON request body."

addedInput schema / properties / body / properties

Added value: +{
+  "target": {
+    "description": "The phone number in international format, with its country calling code, for example `+1 201 555 0123`. Spaces and dashes are allowed; a missing `+` is added.",
+    "example": "+1 201 555 0123",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}

addedInput schema / properties / body / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "target"
+]
```

First observedAug 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the exact message template, credit metering with an average cost, the 10,000-credit cap and its failure mode, and that failed requests are not charged. Gaps remain around rate limits, code TTL/expiry, and retry/idempotency behavior, which matter for a send operation.

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 core action and the returned code are front-loaded, and each sentence carries substantive information about cost and failure. The trailing 'Group: Verification. Billing per call: Credits: metered (~518.21 avg)' partially restates the cost sentence, which is minor redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description fills the critical gaps by explaining that the code is returned and what failures look like. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter tool, missing only code lifetime and rate-limit expectations for an SMS-sending operation.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents international format, separators, and the missing-plus behavior. The description repeats only 'phone number' without adding format or edge-case detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (sends a six-digit SMS verification code to a phone number) and clarifies it also returns the code for comparison. The scope is narrow and unambiguous enough to distinguish it from get_pricing and post_estimate_cost without opening any schema.

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?

Explains the usage context ('so you can compare it with what the user types') and states the failure condition where the send is blocked (max_cost_exceeded). It does not explicitly say when to prefer get_pricing or post_estimate_cost first, but that is inferable from the cost discussion.

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

All sms-verify tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?