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.
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.4/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or ambiguity for the agent.
The single tool's name is descriptive and follows a consistent pattern using hyphens, which is fine for a lone tool.
One tool is slightly below the ideal range, but it is well-scoped for a focused safety lookup service.
The tool covers the primary use case of assessing broker legitimacy comprehensively, though additional features like reporting could enhance completeness.
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.
| 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
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by listing return data types (verification data, scam reports, regulatory status, trustworthiness indicators). While it does not cover error cases or authentication requirements, the tool's simplicity and the read-only nature make this sufficient. One minor gap: no mention of what happens if the broker is not found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: first states purpose and input, second covers output and usage context. Every word is necessary; no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action. Extremely concise and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one param, read-only, no output schema), the description covers purpose, input formats, return data types, and usage scenarios. It lacks explicit mention of response format or error handling, but the return types listed provide sufficient expectation management for an agent. Output schema absence is partially compensated by listing output contents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter description in the schema is very thorough, including examples and format constraints. The tool description briefly restates the input options but adds no substantial new meaning beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers all parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states it retrieves information to determine broker legitimacy vs scam, mentions inputs (company name or website URL), and lists output types (verification data, scam reports, regulatory status, trustworthiness indicators). The purpose is highly specific and clearly distinguishes the tool from any potential alternatives, even though siblings are absent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description directly 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 provides clear context and implicit boundaries, effectively guiding the agent on appropriate invocation scenarios.
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!