XipFax

Finish adding a file

finish_fax_file

Idempotent

Once the file’s PUT has answered 200, has XipFax read it back and count its pages. Answers the document, ready to send, with its pages; refused where the file never arrived, is locked or unreadable, or takes the fax past the pages a fax may hold. 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": {
      "document_id": "<document_id>"
    },
    "name": "finish_fax_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`document_id`	Yes	The document, as add_fax_file gave it.

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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare mutation/idempotency/safety; the description goes well beyond by naming the read-back and page-count behavior and enumerating refusal conditions (file never arrived, locked, unreadable, exceeding the page limit a fax may hold). That is exactly the failure-mode context an agent needs before calling a mutation tool.

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, precondition front-loaded, with no filler. The middle sentence ('Answers the document, ready to send, with its pages') is slightly convoluted relative to the rest.

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?

For a single-parameter finalization step with an output schema present, the description supplies the precondition, the processing behavior, the failure envelope, and the handoff to send_fax. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains document_id as 'the document add_fax_file gave it'. The description's 'Give send_fax its id' clarifies downstream consumption of the returned id rather than adding meaning to the input parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a concrete verb chain for the tool: after the PUT returns 200, XipFax reads the file back and counts pages, producing a send-ready document. That distinguishes it from add_fax_file (upload) and send_fax (send), though the wording is oblique rather than a crisp 'finalize and validate document' statement.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The triggering condition is explicit: call once the file's PUT has answered 200. It also points forward ('Give send_fax its id'), so the ordering against siblings is inferable. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause or what to do on refusal beyond the listed failure cases.

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?