Skip to main content
Glama
klodr

faxdrop-mcp

by klodr
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

83%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.10.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: sending, whitelisting, and status checking. No overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent pattern of 'faxdrop_verb_noun' with snake_case naming, making the set predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 3 tools, the server covers core fax operations without unnecessary bloat. While minimal, it suits a focused MCP server.

    Completeness4/5

    Essential operations (send, whitelist, status) are covered. A cancel or list tool would improve completeness, but the current set handles primary use cases.

  • Average 4.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 19 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • 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.

  • This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.

  • 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.

  • View related servers

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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    Discloses side effects (API hit, rate limits, caching), terminal statuses, and aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). No contradiction.

    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?

    Concise yet thorough, with clear sections (USE WHEN, DO NOT USE, SIDE EFFECTS, POLLING STRATEGY). No wasted words.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Without output schema, description explains return values (status object + _cached flag). Covers all necessary context for a polling tool.

    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?

    Schema covers 100% of params; description adds context that faxId comes from faxdrop_send_fax, aiding correct usage.

    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 'Check the delivery status of a previously sent fax.' It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it polls for faxes sent via faxdrop_send_fax.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    Explicitly provides when to use (polling for fax sent via this MCP), when not to use (faxes sent outside), and includes a detailed polling strategy.

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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    Annotations (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true) are consistent. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it writes to a persistent file, requires user confirmation, and notes that validation still applies. No contradictions.

    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 structured with clear sections (USE WHEN, DO NOT USE, SIDE EFFECTS, VALIDATION, RETURNS). Every sentence adds value, and the total length is appropriate for the complexity.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Despite no output schema, the description explicitly states the return format ({ paired, country, type }). It covers side effects, persistence, user confirmation, and validation. Annotations and one parameter make this a well-rounded description.

    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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter (recipientNumber), describing E.164 format. The description adds meaning by explaining that validation checks (type, country) still apply at pairing time, which goes 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Add a fax number to the per-recipient whitelist (paired.json).' It distinguishes itself from siblings (faxdrop_get_fax_status and faxdrop_send_fax) by specifying that it is for pre-approving recurring recipients to skip confirmation in faxdrop_send_fax.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    The description explicitly gives when to use ('server runs with FAXDROP_MCP_NUMBER_GATE=pairing and the user wants to pre-approve a recurring recipient'), when not to use ('gate mode is open or closed'), and an alternative ('For one-off faxes, skip pairing and call faxdrop_send_fax directly').

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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    Description adds significant context beyond annotations (destructiveHint, openWorldHint): charges, audit log, fax ID allocation, file location restrictions, and cover page behavior for free accounts. No contradictions.

    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?

    Well-structured with headings and bullet points. Front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Covers side effects, return value structure, polling via sibling tool, file location prerequisites, and parameter interdependencies. Complete for a complex tool with 11 parameters and no output schema.

    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?

    Schema covers all 11 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds value by explaining file path requirements and cover page interactions (free accounts always include branded cover). Enhances understanding but schema already strong.

    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?

    Description clearly states 'Send a real fax via FaxDrop' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (faxdrop_pair_number, faxdrop_get_fax_status) by focusing on the act of sending a fax.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    Explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'DO NOT USE' sections provide clear conditions for use. Lists alternatives (email, sftp) and advises user confirmation steps. Very actionable guidance.

    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

faxdrop-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

faxdrop-mcp 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/klodr/faxdrop-mcp'

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