SendThisFax
Server Details
Send real faxes to EU institutions: pay per fax via checkout link or prepaid API key.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.4/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: check_balance for credit, get_fax_status for polling, get_price for quoting, and send_fax for submission. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores, making them predictable and easy to understand.
Four tools is well-scoped for a fax service: checking balance, getting price, sending, and tracking status. Each tool serves an essential purpose without unnecessary overhead.
The tool surface covers the core fax lifecycle (balance, price, send, status). Missing cancel or list tools are minor gaps; the upload step is handled outside MCP, which is acceptable.
Available Tools
4 toolscheck_balanceCheck credit balanceARead-onlyInspect
Get the prepaid credit balance of the API key used to authenticate this MCP connection. Requires a bearer API key (stf_live_...). Buy or top up credits at https://www.sendthisfax.com/en/credits — credits never expire and failed faxes are re-credited automatically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the type of API key required, details about credit expiration and auto-crediting of failed faxes, and a link to purchase credits. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences, no unnecessary words, and conveys all necessary information efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters, no output schema, and a simple read operation, the description is complete. It explains what is returned (the balance) and provides context about credits and authentication.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the description does not need to explain individual parameters. Schema coverage is 100% (no params), and the description adds no parameter-specific info, but baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving the prepaid credit balance of the API key. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('prepaid credit balance'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like send_fax and get_price.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to check balance) and mentions a prerequisite (requires bearer API key). It lacks explicit instructions on when not to use or alternatives, but this is acceptable for a simple read-only tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_fax_statusGet fax statusARead-onlyInspect
Get the current status of a fax. Poll this after send_fax until a terminal state.
Fax lifecycle: draft (uploaded, not submitted) -> pending (submitted, awaiting payment) -> sending -> delivered | failed. Payment lifecycle: unpaid -> verifying/open (checkout in progress) -> paid | failed | canceled | expired. A fax that fails after payment is refunded automatically to the payer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fax_id | Yes | The fax public id (fax_...) returned by the upload |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description complements readOnlyHint annotation by adding lifecycle states (draft, pending, sending, delivered, failed) and payment stages, including automatic refunds for failures after payment. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise at three sentences, but includes two full lifecycle lists which could be slightly streamlined. However, every sentence adds value and the structure is clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description provides essential lifecycle states for both fax and payment, covering possible statuses. It also mentions refund behavior. Adequate for a simple polling tool, though explicit listing of terminal states would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter fax_id is fully described in the schema with pattern and description. The tool description does not add further semantic value, so baseline 3 applies as schema coverage is 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get the current status of a fax', specifying the action (get) and resource (fax status). It distinguishes from siblings like 'send_fax' by mentioning polling after sending, and from check_balance/get_price by being a status-check tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs 'Poll this after send_fax until a terminal state', providing clear when-to-use context. Includes fax and payment lifecycle details, helping the agent understand expected progression and when polling is complete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_priceGet fax price quoteARead-onlyInspect
Get the price quote in euro cents for sending a fax. Pricing: 5.00 EUR for up to 5 pages, plus 0.50 EUR per extra page, plus VAT based on the payer's billing country (0% VAT outside the EU).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_count | Yes | Number of pages in the PDF | |
| billing_country | Yes | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code of the payer (e.g. DE, FR, NL) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context by detailing the pricing formula (5 EUR for 5 pages, extra 0.50 EUR per page, VAT based on billing country). It does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: first sentence states the core purpose, second provides essential pricing details. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description implies a numeric price in euro cents. It explains how both parameters affect the price. Minor gap: no explicit return type specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (page_count, billing_country). The description adds no new per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'price quote', and the unit 'euro cents'. It distinguishes from siblings like check_balance, get_fax_status, and send_fax by focusing on pricing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for obtaining a price quote before sending a fax, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_fax or check_balance. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
send_faxSend a faxAInspect
Submit an uploaded PDF for faxing.
Step 1 (before this tool): upload the PDF over plain HTTP multipart, using any HTTP client you have — shell, JavaScript fetch with FormData, Python, etc.: curl -F "file=@document.pdf" https://www.sendthisfax.com/api/upload fetch("https://www.sendthisfax.com/api/upload", {method: "POST", body: formDataWithFile}) The response contains fax_public_id and page_count. PDFs must be unencrypted, at most 50 MB and 1000 pages.
Step 2: call this tool with the fax_public_id and the recipient fax number.
Two modes:
With an API key (Authorization: Bearer stf_live_... on this MCP connection): the fax price is debited from the prepaid credit balance and sending starts immediately — no checkout, no browser. sender_email and billing_country are optional (they default to the key's records). Buy credits at https://www.sendthisfax.com/en/credits.
Without an API key: sender_email and billing_country are REQUIRED and the tool returns a checkout_url the USER must pay in a browser; the fax is sent automatically once paid.
In both modes, poll get_fax_status until status reaches "delivered" or "failed" (failures after payment are auto-refunded).
For integration testing, +19898989898 is the designated test recipient number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | Language for emails and the checkout page (default: en) | |
| sender_email | No | Payer email for the receipt and delivery notification. Required without an API key; defaults to the key's email otherwise. | |
| fax_public_id | Yes | The fax public id (fax_...) from the upload step | |
| billing_country | No | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country of the payer, determines VAT. Required without an API key; fixed by the key's first purchase otherwise. | |
| recipient_number | Yes | Recipient fax number in E.164 format, e.g. +49301234567 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc.), the description discloses critical behaviors: the upload dependency, payment mechanisms, debit from credit balance, auto-refund on failure, and the need to poll for status. This fully informs the agent of side effects and constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is long but well-structured: main purpose first, then step-by-step, modes, and notes. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy. A slight trimming of details could improve conciseness, but the current structure aids comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (two-step workflow, two modes, payment, polling), the description covers all necessary aspects: upload, API key vs no key, required params, checkout URL, test number, and error handling. It references sibling tools appropriately and leaves no major gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning: it explains the source of fax_public_id (upload response), conditional requirements for sender_email and billing_country, and provides a test recipient number. It also clarifies locale's default, going beyond the schema's enum list.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a clear verb+resource ('Submit an uploaded PDF for faxing') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by detailing the two-step process. It explicitly mentions the upload prerequisite, making the tool's role in the workflow unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides detailed context: step-by-step instructions, two modes (with/without API key), required vs optional parameters, and references sibling tool get_fax_status for polling. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
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
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!