FitMyCall — Answering Service Prices
REMOTE · MCP.FITMYCALL.COM
Verified pricing for 21 answering services & AI receptionists, dated weekly. Missed-call ROI calc.
Available components
Last scanned (9 hours ago)
Scores higher than 87% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category CRM and Sales
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Endpoint Security74
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- No authorisation is required to call this server. Every tool declares its destructiveHint and none is destructive, so open access doesn't expose one. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- HSTS check failed: the Strict-Transport-Security header is absent. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability73
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 695 tokens (~173/item across 4 items; 4 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management100
- No destabilizing schema changes in the last 30 days.Pass
Tool Coverage100
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 100% of tool parameters carry a description.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 4 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 5 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities60
- Spec-recency check failed: implements MCP spec 2025-06-18; the latest is 2026-07-28. See how to fix → Fail
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 29 Oct 26 0
- The server rewrote its instructions, which are the text every model session reads security
- Tool “get_answering_service_pricing” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- 28 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 25 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 10 Sept 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 26 Aug 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 13 Aug 26 0
- Tool “compare_answering_services” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “get_answering_service_pricing” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- 12 Aug 26 0
- Schema quality: 516 → 670 ▼ functional
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
- New tool “recommend_answering_service_for_industry” functional
- 11 Aug 26 0
First indexed and scored.
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 5 Nov 2026 · Probed https://mcp.fitmycall.com/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=fitmycall.com | CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 9 Oct 2026 | 7 Jan 2027 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | b9cfe1de8e196fa313ca31b5e94248e1 |
| SANs: fitmycall.com, mcp.fitmycall.com, *.mcp.fitmycall.com | ||||||
| CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US (CA) | CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US | 13 Dec 2023 | 20 Feb 2029 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 7ff31977972c224a76155d13b6d685e3 |
| CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US (CA) | CN=GlobalSign Root CA,OU=Root CA,O=GlobalSign nv-sa,C=BE | 15 Nov 2023 | 28 Jan 2028 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 7fe530bf331343bedd821610493d8a1b |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of mcp.fitmycall.com. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | present | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| fitmycall.com. | absent | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication No authorisation required
The endpoint answered without asking for a token. Anyone who knows the URL can reach it.
| Result | No authorisation required |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 200 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://mcp.fitmycall.com/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://mcp.fitmycall.com/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://mcp.fitmycall.com/mcp |
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
compare_answering_services Compare answering services by budget ~152
Compare answering services and AI receptionists by budget and type (human, AI, hybrid). Returns the cheapest verified plans that actually answer phone calls, sorted by monthly price, excluding zero-minute teaser plans and add-ons. Use when someone asks "what does an answering service cost", "cheapest answering service", "AI receptionist under $100", "AI receptionist vs answering service", how it compares with hiring in-house staff, or wants affordable options for a small business. All prices human-verified with dates.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxMonthlyBudget | number | – | Maximum monthly budget in USD |
| minIncludedMinutes | number | – | Minimum included minutes per month |
| type | string | – | Service type filter; default any |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_answering_service_pricing Answering service pricing lookup ~151
Get current, human-verified pricing for a specific answering service, virtual receptionist or AI receptionist (e.g. Smith.ai, Ruby, Dialzara, Abby Connect, AnswerConnect). Returns every plan with monthly price, included minutes, setup fees, overage rates, free trial, plus the date the pricing was last verified on the vendor’s own site. Use when someone asks "how much does X cost", "X pricing", "is X worth it", or asks for alternatives to a named service. Covers 22 services, updated weekly.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| service | string | yes | Service name, e.g. "Smith.ai", "Ruby", "Dialzara", "Abby Connect" |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
missed_call_roi Missed-call revenue loss calculator ~165
Calculate how much revenue a business loses to missed phone calls per month and per year, and which price tier of answering service makes sense at that loss level. Use when someone mentions missing calls, going to voicemail, losing leads after hours, or asks whether an answering service is worth it for their call volume. Inputs: calls per week, percent missed, average customer value, optional booking rate.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| avgCustomerValue | number | yes | Average value of one new customer in USD (1-100000) |
| bookRatePercent | number | – | Percent of missed callers who would have booked; default 30 |
| callsPerWeek | number | yes | Total inbound calls per week (1-2000) |
| missedPercent | number | yes | Percent of calls missed (0-100) |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
recommend_answering_service_for_industry What fits my type of business ~154
Recommend what kind of answering service or AI receptionist fits a specific type of business (plumber, dentist, law firm, HVAC, salon, restaurant, vet, real estate, contractor, property manager, medical practice, funeral home). Returns the real problem that trade has with missed calls, whether human, AI or hybrid usually wins there, matching plans with current prices, and the one question to ask a vendor before signing. Use when someone says what business they run and asks what to get.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| industry | string | yes | Type of business, e.g. "plumber", "dental practice", "law firm", "restaurant" |
| maxMonthlyBudget | number | – | Optional monthly budget in USD |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the FitMyCall — Answering Service Prices MCP server?
FitMyCall — Answering Service Prices is a hosted endpoint at https://mcp.fitmycall.com/mcp, so there is nothing to install locally. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
remote · mcp.fitmycall.com
claude mcp add --transport http com-fitmycall-pricing 'https://mcp.fitmycall.com/mcp'
What is the FitMyCall — Answering Service Prices MCP server?
FitMyCall — Answering Service Prices is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.fitmycall/pricing. Verified pricing for 21 answering services & AI receptionists, dated weekly. Missed-call ROI calc. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://mcp.fitmycall.com/mcp).
Is the FitMyCall — Answering Service Prices MCP server safe to use?
FitMyCall — Answering Service Prices scores 83 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the FitMyCall — Answering Service Prices MCP server expose?
FitMyCall — Answering Service Prices exposes 4 tools: get_answering_service_pricing, compare_answering_services, missed_call_roi, recommend_answering_service_for_industry. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 622 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the FitMyCall — Answering Service Prices MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to FitMyCall — Answering Service Prices without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the FitMyCall — Answering Service Prices MCP server still maintained?
FitMyCall — Answering Service Prices is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 5 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.