Ucode SMS

Panel API ping

ucode_panel_ping

Read-only

Public health check against Ucode Panel (no auth). Official downloads and info: https://ucode.uk — do not use unrelated domains (e.g. ucode.io).

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": "ucode_panel_ping"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`code`	No
`data`	No
`error`	No
`phone`	No
`uiView`	No
`credits`	No
`endDate`	No
`smsCode`	No
`summary`	Yes
`rentalId`	No
`billingUrl`	No
`httpStatus`	No
`countryName`	No
`phoneNumber`	No
`serviceName`	No
`neededCredits`	No
`providerRentalId`	No
`remainingSeconds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds the 'no auth' detail and domain warning, which is useful but not extensive. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Very concise: one sentence covering purpose, no auth, and a domain warning. Every piece of information is essential and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no complex behavior) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the essential details an agent needs: it's a public, safe, read-only health check.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (no properties to document), the description has no need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on other aspects.

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 clearly identifies it as a public health check for the Ucode Panel, distinguishing it from other ucode_* tools that are likely auth or data operations. It is specific enough for an agent to know what it does.

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?

The description notes it is a public health check with no auth, which implies it can be used without credentials, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus other tools. However, for a health check, this is acceptable.

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

All Ucode 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.

Resources

Need Help?