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 4.6/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: checking balance, getting fax status, pricing, and sending. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: check_balance, get_fax_status, get_price, send_fax.
Four tools is appropriate for a focused fax service, covering the essential operations without unnecessary clutter.
Core workflow (price, send, status, balance) is covered. Missing cancellation or listing tools, but these are not essential for the primary use case.
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?
Adds value beyond annotations by noting authentication type, credit expiration policy, and refund behavior. No contradictions with readOnlyHint.
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?
Three efficient sentences: purpose, requirement, policy. Front-loaded and no wasted words.
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?
Fully adequate for a zero-parameter read-only tool; covers authentication and credit policy.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, baseline is 4. Description does not need to add parameter info.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'prepaid credit balance of the API key'. Distinguishes from siblings which are for status, price, and fax sending.
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?
Provides clear context on authentication requirement and where to buy credits, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the full lifecycle from draft to terminal states, and automatic refund after payment failure. This goes beyond the annotation's simple read-only hint.
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, using three short paragraphs with clear sentence structure. The first sentence states the purpose, and the following paragraphs detail the lifecycle without unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context including the lifecycle and payment states. It could be improved by mentioning the return format, but the current content is adequate for the agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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 a well-described parameter (fax_id with pattern and description). The description adds no additional parameter information, so a score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb (get) and resource (fax status). It is distinct from sibling tools like send_fax, check_balance, and get_price, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.
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 explicitly states to 'Poll this after send_fax until a terminal state', providing clear usage context. It also details the fax lifecycle states, which helps the agent decide when to stop polling. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.
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?
The description fully discloses the pricing behavior: 5.00 EUR for up to 5 pages, 0.50 EUR per extra page, and VAT handling based on billing country. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, which only indicates no destructive side effects, by explaining exactly how the quote is computed.
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 a single sentence plus the pricing breakdown, with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys all critical 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?
The description explains the pricing logic well but does not specify the return format (e.g., whether it returns just a number or an object with breakdown). Given no output schema, a slight improvement would be to state the response structure explicitly.
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?
Though the schema already describes both parameters, the description adds meaning by explaining how page_count and billing_country are used in the pricing formula. This transforms abstract parameters into a concrete business rule, significantly enhancing an agent's understanding.
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 price quote in euro cents for sending a fax', specifying both the verb and the resource. The detailed pricing formula distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_fax, making the tool's role unambiguous.
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 the tool should be used before sending a fax to estimate cost, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention contexts where it's not appropriate. Sibling tool names provide additional context but could be clearer.
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?
Annotations already indicate mutability, but the description adds crucial behavioral details: immediate sending with API key versus checkout URL without, auto-refund on failure, and the need to poll for status. No contradictions 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?
The description is well-structured with numbered steps and bullet points. It is front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence provides essential information without unnecessary verbosity. The length is appropriate for the complexity.
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 multi-step process, two modes, and payment requirements, the description covers all necessary context: upload prerequisites, parameter dependencies, checkout flow, and post-send polling. It even mentions a refund policy and test number.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are fully documented. The description adds extra context, such as conditions when sender_email and billing_country are required, default values, and the test recipient number. Examples are also provided.
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 submits an uploaded PDF for faxing, distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_balance, get_fax_status, and get_price. The step-by-step process and use of specific verbs make the purpose unambiguous.
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 explicit when-to-use instructions: after uploading a PDF. It details two modes (with/without API key), when parameters are required, and how to poll for status. It also includes a test recipient number and references alternative tools for polling.
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!