Skip to main content
Glama

Sms numbers · list

sms_numbers_list
Read-onlyIdempotent

List SMS senders with their type (toll_free/ten_dlc/long_code/sender_id/simulator), sendability (status is pending/action_required/active/rejected/released; only active can send), two_way (people can text it back; replies fire sms.received; Sender IDs are one-way), the brand each is registered under, and the use case carriers approved. Order a number with sms_quotes_create / sms_quotes_confirm (paid); releasing one stays in the dashboard.

Scope: sms:read.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "sms_numbers_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
hintNo
statusNo
request_idNo
retry_after_secondsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

While annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint), the description provides deep behavioral context not in the schema, such as detailing the specific enumeration for the `status` field and defining functional traits like which senders are 'two_way' and which are one-way.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but efficient, with every clause providing unique and necessary information about the resource's attributes or associated workflow. The structure flows logically from attributes to usage context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that this is a zero-parameter listing tool, the description is maximally complete. It details every field (type, status, two_way, brand, carriers) that an agent should expect to receive in the output.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Since the input schema has zero parameters, the description does not need to add meaning to input arguments. However, it excels by defining all the semantics of the *resource attributes* that the tool will return.

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?

The purpose is explicitly clear: to list SMS senders. It provides a high level of distinction from siblings by mentioning that resource modification (ordering/releasing) must be done via `sms_quotes_create` or `sms_quotes_confirm`.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It provides clear usage guidance by defining the lifecycle of a number (when it can send, how to order it, and how releasing it persists). This manages user expectations across the workflow.

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.

Resources