Skip to main content
Glama

Buy a one-time number

sms_activation_buy_number
Destructive

One-time SMS numbers. Buy a one-time number for a service+country, paid from the account balance. Returns the id used to poll for the code.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "service_id": "<service_id>",
      "country_id": "<country_id>"
    },
    "name": "sms_activation_buy_number"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
country_idYes
service_idYes
verification_typeNoHow the code arrives: sms (default), call (flash call — the caller's number is the code) or voice (a bot reads the code out; also catches SMS and flash calls). Each has its own countries and prices.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: the purchase is charged against the account balance, and the return value is the id used to poll for the code, which links directly to sms_activation_get_code. It stops short of stating whether the charge is refunded if no code arrives or whether the purchase is irreversible.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by cost source and return semantics. The opening fragment "One-time SMS numbers." is slightly redundant with the following sentence but functions as an efficient topic lead.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The output schema means return values need not be explained, and the description covers cost and the id/polling handoff. However, for a destructive, balance-spending purchase it omits failure/refund behavior and gives no pointer on how to obtain valid service_id and country_id values.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 33%: verification_type is well documented in the schema, but country_id and service_id are bare integers/strings. The description only restates them as 'service+country' and never says these are IDs sourced from the list_services/list_countries siblings or what their formats are, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: "Buy a one-time number for a service+country", and the qualifier "one-time" implicitly separates it from sms_rental_buy_number. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation relies on the agent knowing what 'one-time' contrasts with.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the scope phrase (buy a disposable number for a given service and country), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of checking account balance first, and no routing to sms_activation_list_services or sms_activation_list_countries for the required IDs.

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.