Przypominamy.com SMS

Sprawdź numer (HLR)

check_number

Idempotent

Look up number (HLR)

Check whether a number is reachable and which network it is on, without sending an SMS. Charges the account HLR rate (cached 24h is free). Test mode: verified numbers only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`msisdn`	Yes	Phone number in E.164. Example: +48533991881. A 9-digit number without prefix is treated as Polish.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cached`	No
`msisdn`	No
`status`	No
`network`	No
`cost_grosze`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 14, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "cached": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "cost_grosze": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "msisdn": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "network": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 14, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / msisdn / description

Previous value: -"Numer telefonu w formacie E.164, np. +48533991881. Numer 9-cyfrowy bez prefiksu = Polska."New value: +"Phone number in E.164. Example: +48533991881. A 9-digit number without prefix is treated as Polish."

First observedSep 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: billing (HLR rate), caching (24h free), and a test-mode restriction. This goes beyond annotations and is valuable for an agent to understand side effects.

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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct information: operation, billing, caching, and test-mode. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered there. The description covers cost, caching, and limitations. It could mention error handling or prerequisites, but given the simple single-parameter design, it is sufficiently complete for an agent 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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter description already provides format, example, and default interpretation for 9-digit numbers. The tool description adds no additional parameter guidance, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Check whether a number is reachable and which network it is on') on a specific resource (a phone number) and explicitly contrasts it with sending an SMS. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like send_sms or send_voice.

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 description implies usage context by noting 'without sending an SMS' and mentions cost and test-mode constraints. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The clarity is good but lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

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

All Przypominamy.com SMS 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.