Sentinel
Server Details
Pay-per-call safety checks for AI agents: screen a crypto address or URL before you transact.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct input type (crypto address vs. URL/domain) with clearly different purposes and data sources, so agents can easily distinguish them.
Both tools follow the consistent verb_noun pattern 'check_<input_type>', making the naming predictable and easy to understand.
With only 2 tools, the server is narrowly scoped but still justified for focused security checks. A slightly broader set (e.g., transaction simulation) could enhance value, but 2 tools are appropriate for the stated purpose.
The server covers the core security checks for addresses and URLs, but misses potentially related operations like checking transactions or contracts, leaving some gaps in security assessment.
Available Tools
2 toolscheck_addressARead-onlyInspect
Check whether a crypto address is safe to transact with. Screens OFAC sanctions + community scam lists and flags contract-vs-wallet. Returns verdict (safe/caution/avoid), 0-100 risk score, reasons, and sources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | base | ethereum (default: base) | |
| address | Yes | EVM 0x… address to check |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds specific behavioral details: screening OFAC sanctions, community scam lists, and distinguishing contract vs wallet, and returning verdict/score/reasons/sources.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, each sentence adds value without redundancy. Very concise and structured.
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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns (verdict, risk score, reasons, sources). Slightly lacking detail on return structure but sufficient for this complexity.
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% with descriptions for both parameters. Description does not add significant meaning beyond what schema provides, but provides high-level context of checks performed.
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?
Description clearly states the tool checks address safety, screens sanctions and scam lists, and returns a verdict with risk score. It distinguishes from sibling tool check_url which checks URLs.
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 implies usage for checking address safety before transacting, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. Sibling differentiation is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_urlARead-onlyInspect
Check whether a URL or domain is a scam/phishing site. Screens the MetaMask crypto-phishing blocklist, domain age (RDAP), and lexical red flags. Returns verdict (safe/caution/avoid), 0-100 risk score, reasons, and sources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL or domain to check |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds context about screening sources and output, but does not disclose potential side effects like rate limits or external dependencies.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words: first sentence states purpose, second adds detail on sources and outputs. Efficient and front-loaded.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is checked, screening methods, and return fields. Lacks details on error handling or invalid inputs, but adequate for its complexity.
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?
The single parameter 'url' has 100% schema description coverage, so the tool description adds no further value beyond 'URL or domain to check'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 explicitly states the tool checks URLs/domains for scams/phishing, listing specific screening sources and output details. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool 'check_address' by focusing on URLs rather than blockchain addresses.
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 implies usage for URL safety checks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_address'. No when-not guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!