Skip to main content
Glama
suremapp

SureM SMS MCP

Official
by suremapp
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions(1)
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool has a single, clear purpose: sending SMS/LMS messages via the SureM API.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The single tool name 'send_message' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, and with only one tool, consistency is inherently perfect as there are no other names to compare against.

    Tool Count2/5

    A single tool is too few for a server named 'SureM SMS MCP', which suggests a broader SMS service domain. Expected operations like checking message status, managing contacts, or handling templates are missing, making the surface feel incomplete for the implied scope.

    Completeness1/5

    The server is severely incomplete for an SMS service domain. It only provides message sending, lacking essential operations such as retrieving message delivery status, listing sent messages, managing contacts, or handling templates, which are typical for such services.

  • Average 3.2/5 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 Inno Setup 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

  • Behavior3/5

    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 reveals key behaviors: automatic SMS/LMS selection based on message length (90 bytes threshold) and scheduled sending capability with reservedTime. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens after sending. The description adds value but leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is appropriately concise with three sentences that each add value: states the core purpose, explains automatic message type selection, and describes scheduled sending capability. It's front-loaded with the main function. Some minor redundancy exists between description and schema for reservedTime.

    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?

    For a message-sending tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic operational context but lacks important details. It covers what the tool does and some behavioral aspects, but doesn't address authentication, error responses, success indicators, or system limitations. The description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps for a mutation 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?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it mentions the reservedTime enables scheduled sending and implies subject is for LMS, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 tool's purpose: '슈어엠 API로 문자를 발송합니다' (send messages via SureM API). It specifies the action (send) and resource (messages) but doesn't differentiate from siblings since none exist. The description adds useful context about automatic SMS/LMS selection based on message length.

    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. It mentions automatic SMS/LMS selection and scheduled sending capabilities, but doesn't indicate prerequisites, constraints, or comparison to other messaging approaches. With no sibling tools, this is less critical but still a gap.

    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

surem-sms-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

surem-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/suremapp/surem-sms-mcp'

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