Skip to main content
Glama
Pibot-Dev

sms-web2sms-mcp-server

by Pibot-Dev
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
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 targets a distinct operation: sending, status checking, and balance checking. There is no overlap in purpose, making selection unambiguous.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: send_sms, check_status, check_balance. This is predictable and easy to understand.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for its stated purpose of SMS management. Each tool is essential and the count fits within the ideal 3-15 range.

    Completeness4/5

    The core lifecycle of sending an SMS and tracking it is covered: send, check status, and check balance. A minor gap is lack of additional management features like message history, but these three operations are sufficient for the primary use case.

  • Average 3.5/5 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 status not available

  • 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'send an SMS message' without mentioning potential side effects such as carrier costs, required authorization, delivery status, or failure modes. The mutating nature is implied but not elaborated.

    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, direct sentence that states the purpose without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded and earns its place.

    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?

    Despite having 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides no information about return values, error handling, or operational context. It does not explain what happens after sending, such as response codes or delivery confirmation, leaving a significant gap for such a complex tool.

    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 has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, and per the rubric, the baseline for high coverage is 3.

    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 'Send an SMS message via web2sms.ro Romanian SMS gateway', which specifies the action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools check_status and check_balance, which are obviously different in function.

    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. The description is purely definitional and does not mention check_status or check_balance, nor does it provide prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selecting this tool.

    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 fully disclose behavioral traits. It merely says 'check status,' which implies a read operation, but it does not state safety, authentication requirements, or response format. The optional API key/secret overrides are not addressed in the description, leaving gaps for the agent.

    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, direct sentence with no redundant wording. It efficiently conveys the core function while remaining 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.

    Completeness2/5

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

    Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns, but it does not. It also omits necessary context such as requiring a prior send_sms call and potential error conditions, making the tool under-specified for an agent to use 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?

    The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters, achieving 100% coverage. Since the description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, 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.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    Clearly states the action ('Check SMS delivery status') and the target resource ('via web2sms.ro SOAP API'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools send_sms and check_balance, which have different purposes.

    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?

    There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. Usage is implied (e.g., after sending an SMS), but no exclusions or comparisons are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

    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?

    With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('check') but does not state return format, potential side effects, or authentication requirements. Minimal but not misleading.

    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?

    Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, no wasted words. Every element contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

    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, but with no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., numeric balance, success/failure). It also lacks any mention of prerequisites or default credentials. Enough for a basic grasp but leaves gaps.

    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 both parameters (api_key, api_secret) have clear descriptions as optional overrides. The description adds nothing beyond this, so the baseline of 3 applies.

    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 'check' with a clear resource 'prepaid SMS credit balance on web2sms.ro', which distinguishes it from siblings like send_sms and check_status. It immediately clarifies 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 Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The context is clear: use this tool when you need to check the SMS credit balance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, so it falls short of a 5 but is more than just implied.

    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

sms-web2sms-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

sms-web2sms-mcp-server 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/Pibot-Dev/sms-web2sms-mcp-server'

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