Skip to main content
Glama
BACH-AI-Tools

Virtual Number MCP Server

by BACH-AI-Tools
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: viewing SMS history, retrieving available numbers for a country, and listing countries. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (view_sms_history, get_number_by_country_id, get_all_countries). While 'view' and 'get' are different verbs, the overall style and structure are uniform and readable.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped and within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool covers a necessary aspect of the virtual number workflow without unnecessary bloat.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool set covers the full core workflow: discover countries, get available numbers for a country, and view SMS history for a number. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of a virtual number service.

  • Average 3.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'View All received SMS,' which implies a read-only operation. It fails to address the 'page' parameter, and the word 'All' could mislead an agent into thinking a single call returns all messages when pagination might be required. This is a significant transparency gap.

    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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It contains no redundant words or irrelevant details, making it well-structured and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. However, the presence of the 'page' parameter in the schema and the phrase 'All' in the description suggest pagination, which is not addressed. This leaves the agent uncertain about retrieving the full set of SMS, making the description slightly incomplete.

    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% (each parameter has an example value), so the baseline is 3. The description clarifies that 'number' and 'countryId' identify the SMS history to view, but it does not explain the 'page' parameter, leaving its semantics undefined. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

    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 uses a specific verb 'View' and a clear resource 'All received SMS,' immediately conveying the tool's function. It also identifies the required parameters (number and country id), distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch numbers or countries. The purpose is 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?

    The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need SMS history for a specific number in a given country. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are clearly different in purpose, so the usage context is adequate without further elaboration.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and gives no details about read-only behavior, ordering, pagination, or response format. The phrase 'currently available' hints at dynamic data but is insufficient.

    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?

    A single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No wasted words or redundant details.

    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) and the presence of an output schema to describe return values, the description is adequate. It could mention whether the list is sorted or if any filtering is applied, but for a basic list retrieval it is reasonably complete.

    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 has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed. Baseline of 4 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource ('list of currently available countries'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like view_sms_history and get_number_by_country_id, which target different data. It is immediately obvious what the tool 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 implies usage when a list of countries is needed, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives. Sibling tool names make the distinction clear, but the description itself does not state when to choose this tool over others.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It adds 'currently available', implying a dynamic read operation, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, pagination, error handling, or other side effects. This is adequate for a simple list tool but leaves gaps.

    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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for conciseness.

    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 presence of an output schema and only one required parameter, the description is reasonably complete. It could be improved by clarifying what 'numbers' refers to (e.g., phone numbers), but the sibling tools and tool name provide enough context to disambiguate.

    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?

    The schema provides 100% coverage with the countryId parameter and an example value. The description mentions 'by given country id', which mirrors the parameter name and adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already conveys. It does not introduce new constraints or formatting details.

    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 the action (Get), the resource (numbers list), and the condition (by given country id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like view_sms_history and get_all_countries by targeting a specific country-based number lookup.

    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 clearly implies the usage context: use when you need a list of currently available numbers for a specific country. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

virtual_number MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

virtual_number MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/BACH-AI-Tools/virtual_number'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server