Netfluid

netfluid__account_send_sms

Sends a Mobile SMS and charges this account. Confirm (yes/no) before executing

Sends a SMS and charges this account. This end point will deliver to limited destinations: South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe, UK. Delivery is not guaranteed. Charged per submission. @param api_key: The api key allocated to your application, must have admin privileges @param token: The wallet_api_token provided by /access/login @param account_fk: The account_fk (this is a database ID (int) not an account address (str) and may not be 0) The account_fk for the account as provided by /wallet/accounts_list @param mobile: The destination mobile number in e164 international format (no +) @param message: The message to send, charged per 160 characters

@return: a json object

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	Yes
`mobile`	Yes
`api_key`	Yes
`message`	Yes
`account_fk`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: it charges the account, requires confirmation, has limited delivery destinations, and requires admin privileges. It also warns that delivery is not guaranteed.

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 description contains redundancy: the first sentence and the second sentence after the blank line both state 'Sends a SMS and charges this account.' This duplication adds unnecessary length, though the @param section is structured.

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?

The description covers auth requirements, destination restrictions, cost model, delivery guarantee, confirmation step, and parameter caveats. With an output schema present, the vague '@return: a json object' is acceptable, making this a well-rounded description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description gives detailed @param explanations for all five parameters, including api_key admin requirement, account_fk being an integer DB ID, mobile format (e164 without +), and message being charged per 160 characters. This fully compensates for the input schema lacking descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Sends a Mobile SMS and charges this account' with specific destination restrictions. This distinguishes it from siblings like netfluid__send_email or netfluid__push_message_send, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use: limited to specific countries, delivery not guaranteed, and charged per submission. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of the highest rating.

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

All Netfluid tools Inspect

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

C2.6/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping or identical purposes (e.g., netfluid__session and netfluid__session_2_token, netfluid__email and netfluid__send_email). With 142 tools spanning wallet, crypto, funding, and paywall features, distinguishing between similar account/crypto/balance tools requires careful reading of descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a snake_case pattern with a netfluid__ or paywall__ prefix, but there are inconsistencies like netfluid__session_2_token, netfluid__netfluid_voucher_check, and single-noun tools (netfluid__skill, netfluid__fees). The two namespaces use slightly different conventions, making the overall set feel less uniform.

Tool Count1/5

At 142 tools, this is an extremely large surface for any MCP server. Even for a comprehensive financial platform, this exceeds practical usability and likely includes duplicates or overly granular operations.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of operations including account management, crypto transactions, funding methods, withdrawals, and paywall subscriptions. However, the presence of duplicate tools suggests redundancy rather than a clean, minimal complete surface, and some workflows may require chaining many tools.

Resources

Need Help?