ClickSend MCP Server and API by Cotlet

List SMS history in ClickSend

clicksend_list_sms_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

List SMS history in the user's own ClickSend account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in ClickSend step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's ClickSend Cloud Browser. ClickSend's official API: ClickSend has a full REST API and an official MCP server, but the MCP server is narrow (checked 23 Oct 2026).

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": "clicksend_list_sms_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: 'opens nothing by itself' confirms no side effects, and it states that the return value is a procedural walkthrough (screens, buttons, fields) rather than data — a behavioral trait an agent could not infer from the annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core workflow is front-loaded reasonably well, but the trailing sentence about ClickSend's REST API and official MCP server — including a dated 'checked 23 Oct 2026' aside — is tangential to invoking this tool and dilutes the message. The instruction/execution distinction deserves prominence rather than being embedded mid-sentence.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations, the description supplies what is missing: what is returned (procedural steps, not SMS records) and the follow-up path via browser tools. Only the explicit boundary against sibling ClickSend list-like tools is absent.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a 0-parameter tool applies; no misleading parameter claims are made.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('List SMS history'), but the second sentence reveals the tool does not actually list history at all — it returns step-by-step instructions for performing the action elsewhere. The real behavior is disclosed, but only after a name and lead sentence that set the wrong expectation, so an agent could easily misjudge what comes back.

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 through a sequencing hint: read the returned steps, then execute with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Cloud Browser. The note about ClickSend's narrow official MCP server gestures at why this tool exists, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no named alternative tool to compare against.

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

All ClickSend MCP Server and API by Cotlet 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?