Skip to main content
Glama
mustafa-boorenie

Twilio SMS Server

by mustafa-boorenie
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v2025.2.24

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The single tool 'send-message' has a clear and distinct purpose for sending SMS messages via Twilio.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The single tool name 'send-message' follows a clear verb_noun pattern (send + message). Since there is only one tool, consistency is inherently perfect with no deviations or mixed conventions.

    Tool Count2/5

    One tool is too few for a server named 'Twilio SMS Server', which suggests a broader SMS functionality scope. Twilio's API typically supports operations like listing messages, checking delivery status, or managing phone numbers, making a single send tool feel incomplete and thin for the domain.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for an SMS server. While sending messages is a core function, there are obvious gaps such as retrieving sent messages, checking message status, or managing SMS-related resources, which are essential for typical SMS workflows and could cause agent failures.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 1 of 1 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

  • 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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Send an SMS message via Twilio' implies a write operation, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, cost implications, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

    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 extremely concise with a single, clear sentence that states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters and no complex context.

    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?

    For a mutation tool (sending messages) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication needs, or operational constraints that would help an agent use it correctly. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these behavioral 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?

    The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('to' and 'message') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding value.

    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 action ('Send') and resource ('SMS message via Twilio'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, with no sibling tools mentioned, there's no opportunity to distinguish from alternatives, which prevents 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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or contextual constraints. It simply states what the tool does without any usage context or exclusions.

    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

twilio_sms_mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

twilio_sms_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/mustafa-boorenie/twilio_sms_mcp'

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