Verdict — Send anything. Get the truth.

Screen a list of links

screen_urls

URL defense: screen up to 25 links in one call. Each link is followed safely server-side and gets a verdict (REAL / SUSPICIOUS / LIKELY SCAM), a warning score, and its top warning flags. Private/internal links are refused per item and invalid entries are reported per item — one bad entry never fails the batch. One screen counts as one credit.

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": {
      "urls": "<urls>"
    },
    "name": "screen_urls"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`urls`	Yes	The links to screen (1–25), each starting with http:// or https://.
`subscriptionCode`	No	Optional subscription code (Personal Pro / Team). The screen draws on the plan’s monthly credit allowance instead of the free daily credits.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 20, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / subscriptionCode / description

Previous value: -"Optional subscription code (Personal Pro / Team). The screen draws on the plan’s monthly atom allowance instead of the free daily atoms."New value: +"Optional subscription code (Personal Pro / Team). The screen draws on the plan’s monthly credit allowance instead of the free daily credits."

Changed1 schema field changedOct 18, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / subscriptionCode

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional subscription code (Personal Pro / Team). The screen draws on the plan’s monthly atom allowance instead of the free daily atoms.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses server-side following, the exact verdict categories, the warning score and flags output, per-item refusal of private/internal links, per-item invalid-entry reporting with batch isolation, and credit consumption. These are the failure modes and side effects an agent most needs to know.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the capability and cap, then the outputs, then the edge-case handling and cost. No sentence is filler — each conveys capability, return shape, or failure behavior.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does: verdict enum, warning score, and top warning flags. Combined with per-item error handling and credit cost, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the call correctly.

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, including the 1–25 range and the subscriptionCode credit semantics. The description reinforces the 25-item cap but adds nothing new about the parameters themselves, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('screen up to 25 links in one call') and states the batch scope explicitly, which implicitly separates it from the single-item sibling check_url. An agent can tell at a glance this is the bulk-screening tool rather than a one-off check.

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?

It gives clear usage context — batch screening up to 25 links, cost of one credit per screen — so the agent knows the capacity and billing model before calling. It does not, however, explicitly route single lookups to check_url or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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. tools Inspect

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.