check_messagePaste any suspicious text — a message, email, marketplace listing, job offer, investment pitch or link — and get a plain verdict (REAL / SUSPICIOUS / LIKELY SCAM) with every check shown, a warning score, what to do next, a signed verdict certificate, and a shareable verdict link. Content is processed, not stored.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The full suspicious message or text to check (10–8000 characters). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the three possible verdicts, the accompanying artifacts (score, checks, certificate, shareable link), and the data-handling policy 'Content is processed, not stored.' It omits auth, rate/latency, and cost characteristics, but the core behavior is disclosed.
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?
A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and input types, followed by the payoff. The output enumeration is list-heavy but every item earns its place given there is no output schema. Slightly long but not wasteful.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly does the work of describing returns (verdict, per-check detail, warning score, next steps, signed certificate, shareable link), and input format is covered by the schema. The one gap is the absence of routing guidance against the URL-checking siblings.
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?
One parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents input format and the 10–8000 character bound. The description adds only the framing 'any suspicious text', which does not extend meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('check a suspicious message') and enumerates the accepted inputs (message, email, marketplace listing, job offer, investment pitch, link), which lets an agent distinguish it from the URL-oriented siblings. It stops short of stating the boundary explicitly, and listing 'link' as valid input creates minor ambiguity with check_url.
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?
'Paste any suspicious text' and the enumeration of content types imply when to use it, but there is no explicit when-not or routing statement naming check_url/screen_urls as alternatives for URL-only input. Usage is inferable rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.