Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Verdict — Send anything. Get the truth.

by io.github.nrupala
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check a suspicious link

check_url

Check one web link: it is followed safely server-side, tested for look-alike domains, domain age, sender rules, and the URLhaus known-bad list. Returns the same verdict, checks, certificate and share link as check_message.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "check_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe full link to check, starting with http:// or https://.
subscriptionCodeNoOptional subscription code (Personal Pro / Team). The check draws on the plan’s monthly credit allowance instead of the free daily credits.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / subscriptionCode / description
      Previous value: -"Optional subscription code (Personal Pro / Team). The check draws on the plan’s monthly atom allowance instead of the free daily atoms."New value: +"Optional subscription code (Personal Pro / Team). The check draws on the plan’s monthly credit allowance instead of the free daily credits."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / subscriptionCode
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional subscription code (Personal Pro / Team). The check draws on the plan’s monthly atom allowance instead of the free daily atoms.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses safe server-side fetching, the specific detection techniques (look-alike domains, domain age, sender rules, URLhaus list), and what the response contains. It omits auth requirements and any rate/credit limits beyond the schema's subscriptionCode hint.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and no wasted framing. The list of checks is informative rather than padding, though the second sentence leans on the reader knowing check_message's return shape.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return contents (verdict, checks, certificate, share link). It is nearly complete for a read-only check tool, with the only gap being that the return shape is delegated to check_message rather than described inline.

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 are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check one web link') and enumerates the checks performed, which is more than a tautology. It distinguishes itself from check_message by scoping to a single URL, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the screen_urls sibling.

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 only implied: the mention of returning the same result as check_message hints that this tool is the URL-specific entry point. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over check_message or screen_urls, and no stated prerequisites.

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

All Verdict — Send anything. Get the truth. toolsInspect
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.

Resources