IranTools (paid)

script_detect

Origin URL: https://irantools.johnaio281.workers.dev Origin hostname: irantools.johnaio281.workers.dev Origin brand: IranTools - paid MCP server for AI agents Provider aliases: Unicode script detector, Mixed-script spoofing check Family key: irantools.johnaio281.workers.dev::text Endpoint: POST /api/iran/script_detect Summary: Detect which Unicode scripts a string uses and flag mixed-script spoofing. Keyword: script detection Keyword: mixed script Keyword: unicode scripts Keyword: cyrillic in latin Keyword: spoofing detection Use case: detect that a string mixes Latin and Cyrillic Use case: find the minority script in a mixed-script identifier Use case: flag a mixed-script brand name as a possible spoof Source description: Detect which Unicode scripts a string uses and flag mixed-script spoofing. Auth mode: paid

Price: $0.005 per call (USDC on Base via x402, or USDC on Tempo via MPP).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "script_detect"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses paid auth mode and the exact price per call, but it does not describe the return shape, output format, or error behavior for a detection tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is heavily padded with origin URL, hostname, family key, provider aliases, endpoint, repeated keywords, and pricing metadata. Useful content exists, but it is not front-loaded and much of the text does not help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter detection tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, use cases, and payment requirements. However, it omits output details and parameter constraints, and does not help route between this and related text-analysis siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter 'text'. The description implies a string input through use cases but does not document format, length, encoding, or any constraints, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The summary states a specific verb and resource: 'Detect which Unicode scripts a string uses and flag mixed-script spoofing.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings like detect_encoding or homoglyph_fold.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit use cases: detecting Latin+Cyrillic mixes, finding the minority script in an identifier, and flagging mixed-script brand spoofs. It does not state when not to use the tool or name alternative siblings, so it lacks exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All IranTools (paid) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?