Infobip API + MCP by Infobip

# Fix list: Infobip API + MCP

From Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/infobip, the October 2026 research run, assessed 1 October 2026. Grade C, 59.3 out of 100.

This is everything the published grade says the listing lacks, the biggest possible gain to the total first. It comes from the reason given for each score, the checklist each category was scored against (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist), the provenance checks, the deductions, what we couldn't check and what the review panel asked for. A fix counts at the next check, once it's public.

For a coding agent working on Infobip API + MCP: work through the items below in the product, its docs and its public pages. Each category gives the reason for its score, with the points each checklist item earned, and the checklist itself, so the gap is the items that earned less than their points. Change the product, not the wording, and keep a note of what you changed and where it's published.

## 1. Reliability, 43 out of 100, up to 11.4 more on the total

Why it scored 43: Statuspage at status.infobip.com with components and history (20). IsDown counts 28 incidents across Infobip in 90 days, 17 marked major. The status page showed Europe-wide traffic processing degradations on 10 August (about 1 hour) and 15 August (about 3 hours), which we count as majors for messaging. Others were single-country, such as WhatsApp traffic in the UAE for about 2 hours on 10 September. Two majors fall between the checklist's one major and several, so half the one-major mark (5). No messaging rate limits published (0). 429 is in the shared status and error codes, with no Retry-After or backoff guidance found (8 of 15). No SLA found (0). The SMS and WhatsApp APIs are generally available. The Message, Provision and Observe MCP servers are early access (10).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-reliability):

Hosted APIs, MCP servers, models and platforms.

- 20, a public status page with component history (Statuspage, Instatus, BetterStack or the vendor's own).
- 0 to 30, the incident record for the last 90 days on that page. 30 for a clean record or trivial incidents only, 20 for minor incidents only, 10 for one major outage (an hour or more of a core API down, or errors across the board), 0 for several. 5 when there's no history we could read, and the note says so.
- 15, rate limits documented with numbers.
- 15, documented 429 or overload handling (Retry-After, backoff guidance), and idempotency keys or safe-retry guidance where writes are involved.
- 10, an SLA published for any paid tier.
- 10, the surface agents use is generally available, not beta or preview.

Local packages, SDKs, frameworks and stdio MCP servers.

- 20, installs from an official package with supported runtimes stated.
- 25, a public CI and test suite, passing on the default branch.
- 0 to 25, open crash or regression issues relative to activity (25 for few and handled, 0 for many, old and unanswered).
- 15, semver discipline and breaking changes called out in a changelog.
- 15, version 1.0 or later, or declared stable.

Protocols are read from their reference implementations, the public facilitators or servers, spec stability and test vectors.

## 2. Payments & pricing, 25 out of 100, up to 9.4 more on the total

Why it scored 25: No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Per-country SMS prices are public but shown as averages across networks, with per-network prices in the portal (15 of 20). A 60-day trial with up to 100 messages per channel to verified numbers. The trial page doesn't say whether a card is needed (10 of 20). A person signs up in a browser (0).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-payments):

The published rubric, also on the [x402 page](https://www.anchorterminal.com/x402/).

- 40, a machine payment protocol (x402, MPP or L402) on the tool's own endpoints. 10 to 30 when it covers only some endpoints or only goes through a third party, and the note says which.
- 20, per-call or per-unit pricing published without a login. 10 for public plan-only pricing, 0 for "contact sales" or prices behind a login.
- 20, a free tier or trial that doesn't need a card.
- 20, autonomous onboarding, meaning an agent can get access without a person signing up in a browser (keyless use, x402, a programmatic key API).

Payment platforms and agent wallets rarely charge for their own API over a machine protocol, so the first line has steps for them, and the highest one that applies counts. 40 when x402, MPP or L402 runs on all their own endpoints, 30 when it runs on part of their own API, 25 when their merchants can accept one, 20 for running a facilitator, 15 for paying as a buyer, and 0 when the only protocol is their own. Merchant acceptance sits above a facilitator because the platform's own customers can charge agents through it, while a facilitator settles for sellers who wire up the protocol themselves. The counter-argument (a facilitator does more for the protocol as a whole) has a point. Each note says which step applied.

Open-source software you run yourself is scored on its hosted or paid option if it has one. A free, self-hosted package with nothing to buy gets 20, 20 and 20 for the last three lines, and 0 to 40 for the first only if it ships a payment protocol.

## 3. Agent ergonomics, 56 out of 100, up to 7.2 more on the total

Why it scored 56: The MCP servers split by channel, from 1 or 2 tools on the Message server to 27 on RCS, with SMS at 10. API lists weren't checked for field selection (18 of 25). Message logs and delivery reports by API, filters not rechecked this run (15 of 20). A shared error-codes page an agent can use (15 of 20). No idempotency key or safe-retry guidance found (0). The official Python client's last release was 6.0.0 in January 2026, the JavaScript SDK's in 2023, and each account has its own base URL (8 of 15).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-ergonomics):

- 0 to 25, context cost. For MCP, the number and size of the tool definitions (25 for ten or fewer compact tools, 15 for 11 to 30, 5 for more than 30, plus up to 10 back for toolsets, dynamic loading or read-only subsets). For APIs, whether responses can be sized (field selection, limits, summaries).
- 20, pagination, filtering and output-size controls.
- 20, actionable, documented error responses, codes and messages an agent can recover from.
- 20, idempotency or safe retries, and for MCP the `readOnlyHint` and `destructiveHint` annotations.
- 15, sensible defaults, few required parameters, and official SDKs in at least two languages.

Models are read for tool use, structured output, prompt caching, context length, batch and SDKs. Frameworks for how much code and how many defaults a tool-calling agent with MCP needs.

## 4. Security & auth, 67 out of 100, up to 5.8 more on the total

Why it scored 67: API keys with scopes, expiry dates and optional IP allowlists, plus OAuth 2.0. The hosted MCP servers accept OAuth 2.1 with discovery (30). Scopes separate reading logs from sending traffic, and splitting MCP servers by job keeps an agent to one channel. No confirmation step before sends (15 of 20). Inbound messages are untrusted text. We found no webhook signing or prompt-injection guidance (0 of 15). Message logs and delivery reports by API, and the Account Management MCP lists audit logs among its tools (12 of 15). A valid security.txt, ISO 27001, 27017 and 27018, and SOC 2 Type 2. No bug bounty or disclosure policy found (10 of 20).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-security):

- 0 to 30, the credential model. 30 for OAuth 2.1 with scopes, or scoped and revocable keys with rotation. 20 for plain revocable API keys. 10 for one all-powerful key. 10 off when a secret can travel in a URL query string as a documented option.
- 0 to 20, read-only or least-privilege modes, and confirmation or approval for destructive actions.
- 0 to 15, prompt-injection posture where the tool returns untrusted content (documented mitigations or guidance). A tool that returns no untrusted content gets 10.
- 0 to 15, audit logs or per-call visibility for the operator.
- 0 to 20, a security programme. security.txt or a disclosure policy, a bug bounty, SOC 2 or ISO 27001, advisories handled in public.

Models are read for retention, whether API data trains models (and whether that's off by default), zero-retention options and certifications. Frameworks for telemetry defaults, approval hooks, guardrails and sandboxing.

## 5. Maintenance & community, 60 out of 100, up to 3.5 more on the total

Why it scored 60: Release notes dated 2026-09-09 (Ink) with platform changes, and the MCP repo added the Observe server on 2026-09-12 (30). One dated release entry and two MCP server launches (Provision on 2026-07-16, Observe on 2026-09-12) in 90 days (10 of 20). Closed service with release notes and a devrel contact (8 of 15). The MCP is in the official registry as com.infobip/mcp, but the official Python client's last release was 6.0.0 on 2026-01-22 and the JavaScript SDK's in November 2023 (10 of 15). The JavaScript SDK's dependencies are stale (2 of 10).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-maintenance):

- 0 to 30, time since the last release, or the last published model or API change for a closed service. 30 within 30 days, 20 within 90, 10 within 180, 0 older.
- 20, at least three releases or dated changelog entries in the last 90 days.
- 0 to 25, responsiveness. Issues and pull requests answered on GitHub (the open issues and how recent the replies are). For closed services, a public changelog and a support or community channel that answers, 0 to 15.
- 15, presence in the official MCP registry under a verified namespace (MCP servers), or current official SDKs (APIs and models).
- 10, package health, current dependencies and CI.

Models are read for deprecation notice periods and model churn rather than release counts.

## 6. Transparency & trust, 78 out of 100, up to 1.9 more on the total

Made of editorial 55, provenance 100.

Why it scored 78: Closed service with clear service terms (15). Privacy notice, a data retention notice, a data transfer agreement, information security terms and a sub-processor page (25 of 30). No deprecation policy or dated notices found (0). The sub-processor page says where customer data is stored and accessed, lists the EU region-locked data centre separately, and sends change alerts by email (15 of 20).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-transparency):

- 0 to 30, source availability and licence clarity. 30 for open source under an OSI licence, 15 for closed with clear terms, 0 for unclear terms.
- 0 to 30, data handling and retention statements that agree with each other (privacy policy, DPA, retention periods, subprocessors).
- 0 to 20, a deprecation policy or notices with dates.
- 0 to 20, telemetry disclosed with an opt-out (local software), or subprocessors and data locations disclosed (hosted).

The other half of Transparency and trust is the provenance score, computed from checked facts (below). The category score is the mean of the two.

## 7. Schema & documentation, 90 out of 100, up to 1.6 more on the total

Why it scored 90: One OpenAPI 3.1 spec for the platform at api.infobip.com/platform/1/openapi (25). llms.txt and a no-key docs search MCP (10). Channel pages explain each endpoint, and the MCP README compares the messaging servers by tool count and token cost (15 of 20). Typed JSON bodies from the spec (13 of 15). Examples and a shared response status and error codes page (13 of 15). Versioned paths and dated release notes (14 of 15).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-schema):

APIs and MCP servers.

- 25, a machine-readable contract (a public OpenAPI file or similar; for MCP, typed JSON Schema inputs on every tool).
- 10, llms.txt or Markdown docs served for agents.
- 0 to 20, descriptions that say what a tool is for, when to use it and when not to, read from the tool definitions in the source or the API reference.
- 0 to 15, typed inputs with enums, constraints and required fields, and no free-form JSON blobs.
- 0 to 15, examples and documented error responses.
- 15, versioning and a public changelog.

Models are read from the API reference, the OpenAPI file, llms.txt, the structured-output and tool-use docs and the model cards. Frameworks from docs a model can follow, typed interfaces, examples and the API reference.

## What we couldn't check

What we couldn't read counted as absent. Publishing it on a page a plain HTTP fetch can read (not only in a browser) lets the next check count it.

- Whether the August traffic processing degradations affected SMS delivery or only other products
- Whether the trial needs a card
- Whether Infobip signs webhooks
- The listing's PyPI package was the community SDK, last released in 2023. We've patched it to the official infobip-api-python-client and set lastRelease from the 2026-09-09 release notes

## Weaknesses

- Europe-wide traffic processing degraded on 2026-08-10 (about 1 hour) and 2026-08-15 (about 3 hours)
- No messaging rate limits or SLA published
- Published SMS prices are network averages, and per-network rates need a portal login
- JavaScript SDK unreleased since November 2023
- No webhook signing found

## What costs an agent a turn today

The notes we give agents before they call it. Each one is a workaround an agent shouldn't need.

- Use the account's own base URL (<subdomain>.api.infobip.com), not a generic host
- Connect only the MCP server for the channel you need, the RCS server alone has 27 tools
- Create a key with only the scopes the agent needs and an expiry date
- Send trial messages from ServiceSMS to verified numbers only (up to 5)

## What the review panel asked for

- Publish per-network rates
- Publish messaging limits
- Publish an SLA

## When it's done

Send what changed and where it's published as a dispute (https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes, or `POST https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/contact` with `"kind": "dispute"`). Disputes are answered in public, and the listing is checked again by the same checklist. Paying for an audit or a listing claim changes nothing here.