RelayShield Scam Checks

Check links for phishing and malware

check_link

Read-only

Checks one URL, or up to 25 URLs in a single call, against RelayShield's threat-intelligence corpus for known phishing, malware, and scam abuse. Provide either url (a single http:// or https:// link) or urls (an array of up to 25 links). Returns a per-link verdict of FLAGGED or unknown with the reasons behind each verdict, plus counts of checked, flagged, and incomplete links. A verdict of unknown means nothing is known against the link; this tool never reports a link as safe.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No	A single link starting with http:// or https://. Omit when sending urls.
`urls`	No	Up to 25 links to check in one call. Omit when sending url.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed12 schema fields changedNov 11, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / url / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / url / default
```
Added value: +null
```
addedInput schema / properties / url / title
```
Added value: +"Url"
```
removedInput schema / properties / url / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

addedInput schema / properties / urls / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / urls / default
```
Added value: +null
```
removedInput schema / properties / urls / items
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
removedInput schema / properties / urls / maxItems
```
Removed value: -25
```
addedInput schema / properties / urls / title
```
Added value: +"Urls"
```
removedInput schema / properties / urls / type
```
Removed value: -"array"
```
addedInput schema / title
```
Added value: +"check_linkArguments"
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {
+      "title": "Result",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "title": "check_linkOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: verdict semantics for 'unknown' and the explicit warning that the tool 'never reports a link as safe'. It omits rate limits, error behavior, and auth needs, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences: capability, invocation, return shape, then the critical interpretation caveat. Nothing is wasted and the most decision-relevant detail (unknown != safe) lands last for emphasis.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still supplies the one thing a schema cannot convey — how to interpret an 'unknown' verdict. Parameters are fully documented, so an agent has everything needed to call and read the result.

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 coverage is 100% and both fields already carry 'omit when sending the other' text, so the description's parameter guidance is largely repetition. The only added framing is the batch ceiling, which the schema also states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Checks one URL, or up to 25 URLs') against a named corpus for named threat types, and the batch capacity is stated up front. An agent can distinguish this from check_breach/check_email/check_wallet purely from the description.

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?

Gives clear invocation context: use `url` for one link or `urls` for up to 25, and omit the other field. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating when to prefer a different check tool, so there are no explicit exclusions.

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

All RelayShield Scam Checks 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.

Resources

Need Help?