clicksend-mcp-server

Official

by ClickSend

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v2026.8.10
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool targets a distinct endpoint such as sending, pricing, or viewing templates, but 'View SMS Statistics' and 'View SMS History' could be mistaken for one another by an agent looking for past SMS data. The short descriptions provide only a general hint, leaving some ambiguity between those two.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names follow a consistent pattern of HTTP method plus '--v3--' plus an endpoint path, making them predictable from the API structure. However, the resource portion varies in word order and phrasing (e.g., 'sms-send' vs 'statistics-sms' vs 'search-contacts-lists'), so it is not fully uniform.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is a well-scoped size for an SMS server, covering sending, pricing, templates, contact lists, history, and statistics. Each tool has a clear role and there is no obvious filler.
Completeness4/5
The core SMS workflow is covered: calculate price, view templates and contact lists, send the message, then capture history and statistics. The set has minor gaps around managing/updating contacts or templates, but these are not essential for sending or reviewing SMS messages.
Average 2.7/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'View', which implies read-only behavior, but it does not mention pagination, filtering, sorting side effects, rate limits, or output formats. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and front-loaded, but 'View SMS Templates' is under-specification, not concise value. It has no structured guidance, no context, and no contrast with sibling tools, so it does not earn its place as a meaningful description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, how records flow, and how it is distinct from nearby SMS tools. It only provides the shallow phrase 'View SMS Templates', leaving the agent reliant on the schema for matters that the description should have clarified.
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 input schema provides 100% coverage of all 4 parameters with detailed descriptions for q, page, limit, and order_by, including field names, defaults, and encoding guidance. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is only 'View SMS Templates', which essentially restates the tool name without adding any clarifying details. It identifies the resource but offers no scope, behavior, or distinction from sibling tools, making it a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get--v3-sms-history or post--v3-sms-send. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, so the agent is left to infer the usage context.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. The word 'View' implies a read operation, but it does not describe the output format, the effect of the 'q' query parameter, pagination behavior, or whether the lists are sorted or filtered by default. This is too minimal to provide meaningful transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At only one short phrase, the description is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It echoes the tool's name nearly verbatim and fails to earn its place, since it does not add meaningful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is simple with only one parameter and no nested objects, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the 'q' parameter, the type of data returned in the list, or any behavioral nuances, and without output schema there is no extra context to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema defines one parameter, 'q', with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this leaves the agent with no idea what 'q' represents, what values are valid, or whether it is a filter, a search term, or something else.
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 uses a specific verb ('View') and resource ('Contact Lists'), clearly identifying the operation. It is distinct from the sibling tools, all of which focus on SMS (send, price, templates, statistics, history). However, it omits the 'search' aspect implied by the tool name and could be more specific about what 'view' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the SMS-related siblings at all, nor does it explain any scenario where this tool is specifically needed. The agent can only infer usage from the resource name in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'View SMS History' simply restates the tool name and adds no information about side effects, read-only behavior, response shape, pagination, or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short with no filler or unnecessary content. It is front-loaded and concise, although it leaves out behavioral and usage details that would make it more helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The parameter schema is rich, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not disclose the shape of the result, whether the operation is read-only, or when it should be preferred over siblings, leaving an under-specified contract for the agent.
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%, and the schema itself provides extensive documentation for filtering, pagination, sorting, and date conversion. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 gives a clear verb and resource: 'View SMS History'. It is naturally distinguishable from send, price, template, and contact-list siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from a similar reporting sibling like statistics-sms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as post--v3-sms-send or get--v3-statistics-sms. The only hint is the word 'history', so usage is implied rather than stated.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. 'Send SMS' names the action, but it does not disclose side effects such as possible charges, dispatch behavior, invalid-recipient handling, or what the response will contain. There is no contradiction with annotations, but there is barely any behavioral context.
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 phrase is genuinely brief and front-loads the key verb, but it is more under-specified than usefully concise. A good summary would still be short, could include the target/manual alternatives for a fuller picture.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool has a complex one-parameter schema containing an array of message objects with many nested constraints, and there is no output schema or annotations. A two-word description does not provide enough surrounding context for an agent to confidently choose and invoke this tool without potentially digging into every schema detail.
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 JSON schema already documents the messages array and its nested properties in substantial detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the word 'SMS', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a concrete verb and resource: 'Send SMS' is clearly the outbound-SMS operation, distinct from sibling tools about pricing, history, statistics, or templates. It is short but not vague; a 5 would need more detail about recipients and message scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explanation of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as post--v3-sms-price, nor any mention of preconditions like the need for a Sender ID or a recipient/list. The only guidance is the imperative 'Send SMS', so an agent must infer the intended usage context.
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 must bear the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Calculate SMS Price' does not say whether this is a read-only quote operation, whether it sends anything, what the response contains, or whether there are caveats such as pricing depending on country, character count, or message parts. The input schema hints at such details, but the description itself adds almost no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief and has no wasted words; it is front-loaded and immediately communicates the headline purpose. However, the brevity is close to under-specification, so it is concise but not as carefully structured as a minimally complete description could be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There are no annotations, no output schema, and the description is only three words. The schema compensates for parameter meaning, but the endpoint's observable behavior — the pricing result, what the request implies, and how it differs from other SMS endpoints — is left to guessing. This is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke it without further inference.
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%, and the input schema already documents every field, including the nested messages object and the rich meaning of body, to, from, country, and schedule. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate SMS Price.' This is enough to tell the agent that the tool performs pricing rather than sending, searching, or retrieving SMS statistics, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools. However, it is quite terse and does not clarify the scope beyond 'price,' so it just misses a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool or how it differs from the siblings. It does not say 'use this instead of sending to estimate cost' or any conditions under which this endpoint should be preferred. The usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
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?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency on its own. 'View' implies a read operation, but the description does not explain what statistics are returned, what time period is covered, or any other behavioral traits.
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 is very short, but this brevity comes mostly from under-specification rather than precise, intentional economy. It is readable and front-loaded, but misses meaningful clarifying content.
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?
Because the tool has no parameters, the agent can invoke it without further input. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides no context about what the returned statistics represent, which leaves enough ambiguity for a wrong interpretation.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema requires no parameter documentation. The description's lack of parameter details is acceptable because there is nothing to configure.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'View SMS Statistics.' This is readable and not misleading, but it does not provide enough detail to distinguish statistics from get--v3-sms-history, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the SMS history, templates, price, or send tools. The phrase only describes the action, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![clicksend-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ClickSend/clicksend-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ClickSend/clicksend-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![clicksend-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ClickSend/clicksend-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ClickSend/clicksend-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/ClickSend/clicksend-mcp-server'

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