Skip to main content
Glama

MyOTP.App

by io.github.brntech

Get usage report

get_usage_report
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a paginated list of OTP transactions for a date range. Each transaction includes message_id, timestamp, phone_number, channel, country, cost, status, and the originating client IP. Date range cannot exceed 31 days. Defaults: last 7 days, page 1, 10 per page. Requires the API_REPORTING entitlement (Business or Enterprise plan). Use this to: audit recent activity, build internal dashboards, reconcile billing, or debug delivery issues across many recipients.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number for paginated results, starting at 1. Default 1.
end_dateNoEnd date in YYYY-MM-DD format (UTC). If omitted, defaults to today. The range start_date..end_date cannot exceed 31 days.
per_pageNoResults per page, 1-100. Default 10.
start_dateNoStart date in YYYY-MM-DD format (UTC). If omitted, defaults to 7 days before today. The range start_date..end_date cannot exceed 31 days.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageNoPresent when the endpoint has no data for the range.
per_pageNoRows per page.
total_countNoTotal transactions matching the date range.
total_pagesNoNumber of pages at the requested per_page.
current_pageNoThe page returned.
transactionsNoTransaction rows for the page. May be empty or absent when there is no data.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavioral constraints: max 31-day range, default page/per_page/date window, and the API_REPORTING entitlement requirement. This gives the agent a clear picture of side-effect-free paginated retrieval.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, payload fields, constraints/defaults, and use cases. The most decision-relevant information (what it fetches) is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 the 4 optional parameters, full schema coverage, read-only annotations, and output schema presence, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly. It covers entitlement, defaults, constraints, and intended use without redundancy.

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%, so the input schema already fully documents each parameter, including defaults and the 31-day limit. The description repeats those defaults rather than adding new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a paginated list of OTP transactions for a date range.' It enumerates returned fields and states the scope, distinguishing it from sibling OTP lifecycle tools like generate_otp or verify_otp.

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?

It explicitly lists intended use cases: audit recent activity, build internal dashboards, reconcile billing, or debug delivery issues across many recipients. It does not name alternative tools directly, but the sibling list and the use-case framing make the reporting-versus-operational distinction clear.

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

All MyOTP.App toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

OTP operations are clearly separated: generate, verify, check status, and extend each have distinct responsibilities, and the descriptions explicitly differentiate check_otp_status from verify_otp. The only real ambiguity is between get_account_info and get_account_status, which both return similar account/balance/plan details with somewhat fuzzy boundaries.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use consistent snake_case verb_noun naming, with get_ prefixed for read operations and action-specific verbs like generate, verify, extend, and top_up for state-changing operations. There are no mixed conventions or vague generic names.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is well-scoped for an OTP service covering account lifecycle, OTP operations, billing/top-up, and reporting. Each tool maps to a distinct workflow step, and none feel redundant or unnecessary.

Completeness5/5

The OTP lifecycle is fully covered from generation through verification, status checking, and extension, with supporting account, top-up, and usage-reporting tools. There are no obvious dead ends for typical OTP verification and billing workflows.

Resources