XipFax

Add a file from a link

add_fax_file_from_url

Puts a PDF at a public address on the person’s XipFax draft: XipFax fetches it from the link, which must answer with the PDF itself, and reads its pages. Answers the document, ready to send, with its pages; refused, saying why, where XipFax can’t fetch it, or the PDF is locked, unreadable or takes the fax past the pages a fax may hold, and then nothing is added. For a file on the person’s own disk, use add_fax_file. Give send_fax its id.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "add_fax_file_from_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Where XipFax fetches it from: an https link to a public address that answers with the PDF itself, 40 MB at most, within 15 seconds. XipFax follows no redirect.
`name`	Yes	Its name, such as its file’s: 255 characters at most.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The document.
`name`	Yes	Its name, as it was added.
`status`	Yes	`uploading` until XipFax has read it back, then `ready`. An open set: read what you know.
`page_count`	Yes	Its pages, once XipFax has read it; null while it uploads.
`size_bytes`	Yes	Its size.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (not read-only, open-world, not idempotent, not destructive). The description goes well beyond that: it discloses the fetch is server-side, that the link must serve the PDF itself, and the atomicity guarantee that on rejection nothing is added, enumerating the rejection causes (unfetchable, locked, unreadable, over the page limit). That failure-semantics detail is exactly what an agent needs before committing to a call.

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?

Purpose and the fetch mechanic are front-loaded, and the sibling routing plus the send_fax follow-up land at the end where they belong. The middle sentence is dense and slightly convoluted in its "Answers...; refused..." construction, costing a bit of readability, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be spelled out, yet the description still tells the agent it gets back a document with its pages and ready to send. For a two-parameter mutation with open-world fetching and several named failure modes, this covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the https requirement, the 40 MB and 15-second limits, the no-redirect rule, and the name constraints. The description reinforces the "answers with the PDF itself" point but adds no new parameter-level meaning, 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: it puts a PDF from a public URL onto the person's XipFax draft, with XipFax doing the fetching. It explicitly separates itself from the sibling add_fax_file by naming the local-disk case, so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives both the alternative and the condition that selects it ("For a file on the person's own disk, use add_fax_file") and names the downstream step ("Give send_fax its id"). Nothing about when to reach for this tool versus a sibling is left to inference.

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

All XipFax 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?