Scan suspicious messages, URLs, and text for scams with AI. Free tier - no API key required.
Scored across 1 tool
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion between tools.
The single tool uses a clear verb_noun pattern (scan_message), which is consistent and descriptive.
With only one tool, the server feels underdeveloped for a scam-checking service, missing related functionality like history or batch processing.
The server only provides a single scan action, lacking any additional operations (e.g., report history, multiple scan types) that would make it a comprehensive scam-checking tool.
Scan a suspicious message, URL, or text for scam indicators using ScamCheck AI. Returns a verdict (Likely Scam / Suspicious / Likely Safe), risk score 0-100, category, confidence percentage, reasons flagged, and recommended actions. Use this whenever a user shares a message they received and wants to know if it's a scam.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | The message, URL, or text to scan. Minimum 8 characters. | |
| source | No | Content type: text (default), url, or screenshot. | text |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| risk | Yes | Overall risk level: high, medium, or low |
| score | Yes | Risk score from 0 (safe) to 100 (certain scam) |
| reasons | Yes | Why this was flagged |
| summary | Yes | 1-2 sentence analysis |
| verdict | Yes | Likely Scam | Suspicious | Likely Safe |
| category | No | Scam category, e.g. phishing, lottery_scam, job_scam |
| confidence | No | Confidence percentage 0-99 |
| next_steps | No | What the user should do now |
| result_url | No | Shareable full-report URL |
| recovery_steps | No | Steps if the user already fell for it |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds detail on return values (verdict, risk score, etc.) and the general behavior. There is no contradiction, and the description complements annotations well.
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?
The description is two sentences: the first explains functionality and output, the second provides usage guidance. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence is valuable.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema and the description lists the return fields, the description provides sufficient context for a user to understand the tool's purpose and when to use it. There are no missing aspects for a scanning tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters are already described in the schema. The description's mention of 'message, URL, or text' aligns with the input parameter but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema definitions.
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?
The description clearly states the tool scans suspicious messages, URLs, or text using ScamCheck AI and lists specific outputs. It uses a specific verb 'scan' and resource description, and with no sibling tools, there is no differentiation needed.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this whenever a user shares a message they received and wants to know if it's a scam.' This provides clear context with no ambiguity or need for alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
scan_messageAI-powered scam and threat verification for phone numbers, URLs, texts, and emails.
Scam and phishing detection for AI agents: safe/warn/danger verdicts for URLs and messages.
AI-powered scam detection for suspicious texts, emails, and screenshots. US-focused.
Free crypto scam checks: token and contract risk, scam or sanctioned addresses, phishing links.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.