mcp-saas-toolkit

twilio_check_message_status

Check the delivery status of a sent Twilio SMS message, including current status, error details, and pricing.

Instructions

Check the delivery status of a previously sent Twilio SMS message. Returns current status, error info (if any), and pricing.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "message_sid": "<message_sid>"
    },
    "name": "twilio_check_message_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message_sid`	Yes	The Twilio Message SID to look up (starts with SM)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. The description mentions return values (status, error info, pricing) but does not state that this is a read-only operation or disclose any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Adequate for a simple check but could be more explicit.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every word adds value, with no extraneous information.

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 with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and return info. But it omits prerequisites (e.g., need a message SID from sending) and does not specify output format, which would be helpful.

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% with a clear description for message_sid (starts with SM). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states the verb ('Check') and resource ('delivery status of a previously sent Twilio SMS message'). It distinguishes from siblings like twilio_send_sms and twilio_list_messages, though not explicitly.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies the message was previously sent but doesn't specify prerequisites or when not to use it, e.g., compared to twilio_list_messages.

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