A
licenseNot graded
qualityB
maintenancePerplexity for social: ask what competitors are running across social and get answers grounded in real ad and creative data, not guesses.
2
Apache 2.0
SocialDataX 敏感词检测 Sensitive Text Check MCP
Server Details
Checks social media text for sensitive terms and potential moderation risks, and queries the account credit balance (2 tools). Requires your own Bearer API key; text checks consume credits. Screening does not guarantee platform approval. Website / API key: https://socialdatax.com/ai?from=glama
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership by verifying the domain or GitHub account it belongs to. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
- URL
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Scored across 2 tools
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools serve entirely different purposes: one performs sensitive-text compliance checking, the other retrieves account point balance. There is no overlap in resource or action, so an agent can easily select the correct tool.
Naming Consistency4/5
Both names use snake_case, but check_sensitive_text follows a plain verb_noun pattern while socialdatax_get_points_balance adds a vendor prefix. The deviation is minor and still readable, keeping the set mostly consistent.
Tool Count3/5
Two tools is thin for a server that also handles account/billing concerns, and the surface could reasonably include batch checking or dictionary inspection. It is borderline rather than clearly adequate.
Completeness3/5
Core coverage exists for single-text sensitive checking and account balance, but notable operations like batch checking, listing sensitive-word categories, or explaining flagged terms are missing. Agents can work around the gaps by repeated calls, but the surface is not fully developed.
Available Tools
2 toolscheck_sensitive_textARead-onlyInspect
敏感检测、敏感词检测、违禁词检查与文案合规检查：检查一段社媒文案是否存在潜在平台审核风险。
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | 需要检查敏感词、违禁词或平台审核风险的原文文本。 | |
| platform | No | 目标平台规则。generic 表示通用敏感检测；xhs、douyin、kuaishou 分别表示按对应平台常见内容审核风险做检测。 | generic |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| types | Yes | 风险类型列表 |
| points | Yes | 本次成功调用的积分消耗与调用完成时的账户积分余额。 |
| summary | Yes | 检测摘要 |
| platform | Yes | 检测所使用的平台规则 |
| violation | Yes | 是否存在敏感风险 |
| highlights | Yes | 命中片段列表 |
| risk_level | Yes | 整体风险等级 |
| suggestions | Yes | 修改建议 |
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the check targets platform review risk and that rules vary by platform, but gives no detail on scoring thresholds, output interpretation, or limits — adequate but not rich.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource and the condition checked. The four near-synonym labels (敏感检测/敏感词检测/违禁词检查/文案合规检查) are mildly redundant but serve recall, not bloat.
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?
With an output schema present, 100% parameter coverage, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to establish purpose and scope, which it does. Missing only marginal detail such as what the check returns or how platform-specific rules differ.
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 both parameters (text and the platform enum) are already fully documented in the schema; the description's '社媒文案' phrasing narrows the expected input domain but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.
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 states a concrete verb and resource: inspect a piece of social-media copy for sensitive/prohibited words and platform review risk. The only sibling, socialdatax_get_points_balance, is unrelated, so no differentiation burden exists.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by '检查一段社媒文案' — an agent can infer this is a pre-publish compliance check on social copy, but there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
2 tool updates
- First observed
check_sensitive_text - First observed
socialdatax_get_points_balance
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseCqualityBmaintenanceCompetitor Monitor AI - MCP server providing AI-powered tools and automation by MEOK AI Labs119 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables brand visibility monitoring across major AI platforms like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Perplexity. It allows users to track visibility scores, analyze competitor data, and receive actionable insights to improve AI-generated brand recommendations.164 npm1MIT
industrylens-mcpofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceBrowse IndustryLens's published competitive-intelligence reports and head-to-head competitor comparisons from any AI agent — real, source-backed data.MIT
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
socialdatax_get_points_balanceARead-only Inspect
查询当前 API Key 账户的 SocialDataX 积分余额、剩余积分或点数 / remaining points balance。需要充值时请访问 https://socialdatax.com/dashboard/billing。
No parameters
Output Schema
No output parameters
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that this is a read-only balance query. It adds useful context by tying the balance to the current API Key and pointing to the billing dashboard for recharges. No contradictions or hidden side effects are indicated.
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 short sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides an actionable billing link. Every word earns its place without unnecessary detail.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only balance query with an output schema, annotations, and a billing link, the description is fully sufficient. No additional information is needed for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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?
The tool has zero parameters Belarusand schema coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics are not a burden on the description. The description still adds value by explaining what the returned balance represents.
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 clearly states a specific action (query) and resource (current API Key account's SocialDataX points balance), including Chinese and English terms. It is unambiguous and obviously distinct from the YouTube-focused sibling tools.
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 identifies the exact context: querying the balance for the current API Key accounttons. It also provides a relevant follow-up URL for recharging. There are no competing sibling tools for balance checking, so no explicit alternatives are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.