joltsms-mcp-server

joltsms_list_numbers

List active JoltSMS phone numbers to view status, service labels, tags, message counts, and subscription details for managing inbound SMS verification.

Instructions

List your active JoltSMS phone numbers. Returns phone number, status, service label, tags, message count, and subscription details.

Each number costs $50/month and receives unlimited inbound SMS with parsed OTP codes.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "joltsms_list_numbers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max numbers to return (1-10, default 10)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the cost ($50/month) and unlimited inbound SMS with parsed OTPs, but never states that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is required, or how the default limit of 10 truncates results.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the concrete return fields, followed by the pricing/inbound detail. No filler or repetition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Since no output schema exists, the description appropriately enumerates the returned fields (number, status, service label, tags, message count, subscription). The only real gap is truncation/pagination behavior, which neither the description nor the schema addresses.

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 single limit parameter is fully documented in the schema (range 1-10, default 10). The description adds no additional semantics about limit or pagination, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List your active JoltSMS phone numbers") and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from joltsms_get_number or the other list-style siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative (joltsms_get_number for a single number). The word "active" hints at a filter, but nothing tells the agent under what circumstances this tool is the right choice.

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

Deploy Server