F
licenseNot graded
qualityC
maintenanceMCP server for detecting and analyzing scams using various heuristics and data sources.
broker-safety
Server Details
MCP server offering regulator-sourced legitimacy checks on investment entities by name or URL.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.1/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.2/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
There is only one tool in this server, so there is no possibility of confusion or misselection. The tool's purpose is clear and distinct from any nonexistent alternatives.
Naming Consistency5/5
With a single tool, naming consistency is trivially achieved; there are no other tool names to contradict it. The name 'is-broker-scam-tool' uses a hyphenated style and clearly describes its function, even if not a typical verb_noun pattern.
Tool Count3/5
Having only one tool is borderline for the server's purpose. While the tool is not trivial and covers a specific function, the server could reasonably support additional related operations such as reporting a scam or listing verified brokers, making the count feel thin.
Completeness3/5
The single tool provides a comprehensive lookup for broker legitimacy, covering verification data, scam reports, and regulatory status. However, the surface is incomplete for a full domain, lacking any write operations or broader listing/query capabilities that an agent might expect from a broker-safety service.
Available Tools
1 toolis-broker-scam-toolIs Broker Scam ToolARead-onlyInspect
Retrieves information to determine whether a broker is legitimate or a scam. This tool can look up brokers using either their company name or website URL. It returns verification data, scam reports, regulatory status, and trustworthiness indicators to help assess the broker's credibility. Use this tool when users ask about broker reliability, safety, legitimacy, or want to verify if a specific broker is trustworthy before investing or trading.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | A string containing either the broker's company name OR the broker's website domain as provided by the user. If providing a website, use only the domain name with TLD (e.g., 'example.com' not 'https://www.example.com' or 'https://example.com/page'). For company names, provide the full or commonly known name of the broker (e.g., 'XYZ Trading' or 'ABC Brokers'). |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read-only operation. The description adds context about the two input formats and the types of data returned, but it does not disclose potential failure modes, rate limits, or what happens if the broker is not found. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage, but not exceptional.
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 four sentences, each with a clear purpose: what the tool does, how it accepts input, what it returns, and when to use it. There is no redundant or filler content, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
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?
For a single-parameter, read-only tool without an output schema, the description covers the purpose, input, output categories, and usage scenarios. It does not specify the exact return structure or error handling, but it provides enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most cases.
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 input schema fully documents the 'query' parameter with detailed examples and formatting rules (e.g., domain-only for URLs). The tool description reinforces the dual input types but adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to retrieve information for determining whether a broker is legitimate or a scam. It also specifies input types (company name or website URL) and output categories (verification data, scam reports, regulatory status, trustworthiness indicators), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'when users ask about broker reliability, safety, legitimacy, or want to verify if a specific broker is trustworthy before investing or trading.' This covers typical scenarios and is explicit enough despite having no sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for scam-risk checks on job postings, recruiter emails, and company domains.
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMCP server that evaluates memecoin tokens for scam/rug-pull risk, providing a verdict and risk report using live data from RugCheck and DexScreener.
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server that checks URLs against the URLhaus malware database to identify malicious URLs.