Polish phone number lookup: who called, spam and scam checks, UKE DNO registry, CERT phishing stats
Scored across 7 tools
There is meaningful overlap: search returns a phone reputation card or official numbers, duplicating check_phone_number and find_official_number; recent_scam_domains and spam_weather both surface new CERT Polska scam domains; and check_phone_number overlaps the phone portion of check_scam_domain. The Polish descriptions do give explicit 'UŻYJ gdy' triggers that help an agent choose, raising it above pure ambiguity.
Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (check_phone_number, check_scam_domain, find_official_number), but search and fetch are bare verbs and recent_scam_domains/spam_weather are noun phrases with no verb. The set is readable and all snake_case, but the convention is mixed.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a Polish phone/scam reputation service, with each tool corresponding to a distinct lookup or discovery action. No bloat and no sense of thinness.
The surface covers the core domain well: number reputation, message/domain checking, official-number lookup, recent scam domains, aggregate abuse stats, plus a search+fetch retrieval pair. Missing only peripheral operations (e.g., reporting a number or a standalone email/URL reputation tool), which agents can work around.
Sprawdź reputację polskiego numeru telefonu. UŻYJ, gdy użytkownik pyta: kto dzwonił, czy numer to spam/oszustwo, czy telefon rzekomo z banku lub urzędu jest prawdziwy. Zwraca operatora z zakresów UKE (z notą o przenośności MNP), etykietę ryzyka z opinii, status w wykazie DNO UKE (połączenie przychodzące z numeru DNO jest sfałszowane — spoofing), wpis z Białej Listy oficjalnych infolinii i liczniki zgłoszeń. Dane: numertel.pl.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes | Polski numer w formacie 9 cyfr, np. 510100100 (akceptowane +48 i spacje — zostaną usunięte) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | |
| e164 | Yes | |
| is_dno | Yes | |
| number | Yes | |
| dno_note | No | |
| operator | No | |
| score_avg | No | |
| whitelist | No | |
| spam_label | Yes | |
| attribution | Yes | |
| number_type | No | |
| operator_note | No | |
| sightings_30d | No | |
| total_opinions | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: the operator comes from UKE ranges with an MNP portability note, a risk label from opinions, DNO UKE registry status (with the spoofing caveat), a White List entry, and report counters. It also names the data source (numertel.pl), which is consistent with openWorldHint=false.
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?
Front-loaded with purpose, then use cases, then return values in a logical order. It is dense but each clause carries distinct information about what it returns, so little is wasted.
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?
Annotations cover the safety profile, an output schema exists, and the description still summarizes return fields. Nothing an agent needs to decide to call it or interpret it is missing.
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 the single 'number' parameter is fully described in the schema (9-digit format, +48 and spaces stripped). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Sprawdź reputację polskiego numeru telefonu') and immediately scopes it to Polish numbers, distinguishing it from siblings like check_scam_domain. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.
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?
Gives explicit when-to-use triggers: who called, whether the number is spam/fraud, or whether a claimed bank/office phone is genuine. It does not name the alternative sibling find_official_number, so routing between the two is left partly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Sprawdza wklejoną podejrzaną wiadomość: (1) domeny, linki i adresy e-mail przeciw państwowej Liście Ostrzeżeń CERT Polska (mirror ~129 tys. domen oszustów), (2) polskie numery telefonów z treści przeciw bazie NumerTel (wykaz DNO UKE = spoofing, Biała Lista oficjalnych infolinii, zgłoszenia spamu). UŻYJ, gdy użytkownik pyta: czy ten link/strona/mail jest bezpieczny, albo wkleja całego SMS-a lub e-mail z linkiem i numerem. Przyjmuje pojedynczą domenę, URL, e-mail, numer lub CAŁĄ treść wiadomości (rozpoznaje zapisy evil[.]pl, hxxp:// i +48). Werdykt deterministyczny, zero LLM. Dane: numertel.pl.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Domena, URL, adres e-mail, numer telefonu albo pełna treść wiadomości do sprawdzenia (max 5000 znaków) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| as_of | Yes | |
| phones | Yes | |
| source | No | |
| checked | Yes | |
| list_size | Yes | |
| any_listed | Yes | |
| attribution | Yes | |
| any_phone_flagged | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly and idempotent behavior, so the description adds valuable extra context: the verdict is deterministic ('Werdykt deterministyczny, zero LLM') and the data sources are clearly attributed (CERT Polska, NumerTel, numertel.pl). It also discloses recognition of obfuscated formats, which helps set expectations. No contradiction with annotations.
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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core action, then usage trigger, then acceptable inputs, then behavioral guarantees. Every sentence earns its place: it packs purpose, scope, examples, and data provenance without fluff or redundancy.
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's moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it checks, when to use it, what inputs it accepts, how it behaves (deterministic), and where its data comes from. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists.
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?
Although the schema already documents the 'text' parameter well, the description meaningfully enriches it by explaining accepted input forms (single domain, URL, email, number, or entire message) and how obfuscated formats are handled (evil[.]pl, hxxp://, +48). This goes beyond the schema's basic type description and gives the agent practical guidance for what to pass.
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 a specific verb-resource pair: checking pasted suspicious messages against CERT Polska's warning list and NumerTel phone database. It explicitly lists the artifact types (domains, links, emails, phone numbers) and distinguishes itself from the phone-only sibling tool by handling whole messages and multiple entity types.
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 provides an explicit trigger condition: 'UŻYJ, gdy użytkownik pyta: czy ten link/strona/mail jest bezpieczny...' This is strong when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools (e.g., check_phone_number) for phone-only queries, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Pobiera pełną kartę reputacji numeru po id zwróconym przez search (9 cyfr). Zwraca te same dane co check_phone_number wraz z linkiem do strony numeru.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Id z wyników search: polski numer, 9 cyfr |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: it returns the same data as check_phone_number plus a link to the number's page. However, it doesn't describe error handling or edge cases, which is acceptable given the low complexity and annotation coverage.
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, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no fluff. Every word serves a purpose, and it remains concise while conveying key details about input and output.
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's simplicity (1 parameter, annotations present, no output schema), the description is sufficient. It explains the input source and the output relationship to check_phone_number, providing enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly. Slight deduction for not detailing the exact return structure, but this is mitigated by the 'same data as check_phone_number' reference.
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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', and the description essentially repeats what the schema already states (Polish number, 9 digits). No additional semantic value is added beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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's function: fetching a full number reputation card by ID returned from search. It also specifies the ID format (9 digits) and distinguishes this from check_phone_number by noting it returns the same data plus a link to the number's page.
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 indicates when to use this tool (after obtaining an ID from search) and contrasts it with check_phone_number, implying this is a more complete variant. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the context provides sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Znajdź PRAWDZIWY, oficjalny numer telefonu banku, urzędu lub operatora w Polsce. UŻYJ, gdy użytkownik pyta: jaki jest oficjalny numer lub infolinia danej instytucji (np. ZUS, mBank, PKO, NFZ), albo chce zweryfikować, czy numer podany w wiadomości to faktyczna infolinia. Zwraca zweryfikowane numery z Białej Listy NumerTel ze źródłem (link do oficjalnej strony) i datą weryfikacji. Uwaga: dzwoniąc NA te numery trafisz do instytucji, ale połączenie PRZYCHODZĄCE z nich może być sfałszowane (spoofing). Dane: numertel.pl.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| institution | Yes | Nazwa instytucji: bank, urząd lub operator, np. „ZUS”, „mBank”, „PKO”, „NFZ”, „Orange” |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | No | |
| count | Yes | |
| query | Yes | |
| matches | Yes | |
| attribution | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the warning about spoofing of incoming calls, the data source (numertel.pl), and the return fields (source link, verification date). No contradiction.
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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage, returns, and a security warning. Each sentence earns its place, though the use of all-caps emphasis is slightly noisy and could be toned down. It is efficient but not maximally concise.
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?
All essential contextual aspects are covered: what it does, when to use it, what it returns (verified numbers with source link and verification date), and a critical security caveat about spoofing. The output schema exists, so return details are handled. Low complexity (one parameter) makes this description complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces examples of institution names (ZUS, mBank, PKO, NFZ) but does not add new semantic details beyond the schema's parameter description.
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 finds the REAL, official phone number for banks, offices, or operators in Poland, and can also verify if a number in a message is the official hotline. It uses a specific verb ('Znajdź') and resource, and is distinct from siblings like check_phone_number which likely checks scam numbers.
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 says 'UŻYJ, gdy użytkownik pyta...' and lists concrete use cases (e.g., asking for official number or verifying a provided number). However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or alternatives, so it misses the 'when-not' and 'alternatives' part for a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Najnowsze domeny phishingowe z państwowej Listy Ostrzeżeń CERT Polska. UŻYJ, gdy użytkownik pyta o świeże lub aktualne strony oszustów, nowe kampanie phishingowe albo przykłady oszukańczych domen w Polsce. Zwraca ostatnio dodane domeny w zapisie defanged (evil[.]pl) — NIGDY nie zamieniaj ich w klikalne linki. Dane otwarte CC-BY: numertel.pl.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Ile najnowszych domen zwrócić (1-50, domyślnie 15) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| as_of | Yes | |
| count | Yes | |
| source | No | |
| domains | Yes | |
| list_size | Yes | |
| attribution | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent; the description adds important behavioral details: domains are returned defanged (evil[.]pl) and must never be turned into clickable links. It also credits the open data source, giving additional transparency beyond schema/annotations.
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 compact and front-loads the core function before adding usage guidance and a safety warning. Each segment serves a purpose; no filler.
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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs: purpose, when to use, return format with safety caveat, and data source. No significant gaps.
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 optional parameter 'limit' is fully described in the input schema (1-50, default 15), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so baseline 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 clearly identifies the resource (CERT Polska warning list) and specifies the returned content (latest phishing domains). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating the exact user query scenario ('UŻYJ, gdy...'), making purpose unmistakable.
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 it: when the user asks about fresh/current scam sites, new phishing campaigns, or examples of fraudulent domains in Poland. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Wyszukiwanie w bazie NumerTel: podaj polski numer telefonu (zwróci jego kartę reputacji) ALBO nazwę banku/urzędu/operatora (zwróci zweryfikowane oficjalne numery z Białej Listy infolinii). Wyniki zawierają id, title i url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Numer telefonu (9 cyfr / +48...) lub nazwa instytucji, np. 'mBank', 'ZUS' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the Polish number format, the 'White List' source for verified official numbers, and that results contain id, title, and url. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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, front-loaded with the core action ('Search in NumerTel database'), and contains no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the two modes and the result structure.
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 a single parameter, no output schema, and good annotations, the description fully compensates for the missing output schema by stating the result fields. It also mentions the verified nature of the official numbers. No crucial information is missing for a tool of this simplicity.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the query parameter, including examples ('mBank', 'ZUS'). The description repeats essentially the same information (number or institution name) without adding new semantic details. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a 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 clearly states that the tool searches the NumerTel database, with two distinct modes: searching by Polish phone number to get a reputation card, or by institution name to get verified official numbers. It explicitly mentions the result fields (id, title, url), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiated from siblings like check_phone_number.
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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: when a phone number or institution name needs to be looked up in the database. It outlines the two types of queries accepted. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as check_phone_number or find_official_number, so it stops short of a full when-not/alternatives explanation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Aktualne wskaźniki nadużyć telefonicznych w Polsce. UŻYJ, gdy użytkownik pyta o skalę oszustw, phishingu lub spamu w Polsce albo co nowego w kampaniach oszustów. Zwraca: nowe domeny oszustów na Liście Ostrzeżeń CERT Polska (dziś + dziennie w zadanym oknie), rozmiar wykazu DNO UKE i ostatnie numery z oficjalnych ostrzeżeń urzędów. Dane otwarte CC-BY: numertel.pl.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Okno dni wstecz dla statystyk dziennych (1-30, domyślnie 7) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| days | Yes | |
| as_of | Yes | |
| source | No | |
| cert_daily | No | |
| attribution | Yes | |
| recent_warnings | No | |
| dno_numbers_total | Yes | |
| cert_new_domains_today | Yes | |
| cert_new_domains_window | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context: the specific data sources (CERT Polska, UKE), the time-window behavior, and the open-data license (CC-BY). This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations without contradicting them.
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 well-structured: a one-line purpose declaration, a clear 'UŻYJ, gdy...' usage trigger, a concise list of return values, and a data source/attribution note. Every sentence earns its place, and it remains compact despite the multiple pieces of information.
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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no nested objects, output schema present) and the presence of annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and data provenance. No significant gaps remain.
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%: the 'days' parameter is fully described in the schema (window in days, default 7, min/max). The description only lightly echoes this via 'w zadanym oknie', adding minimal semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states it returns current phone abuse indicators in Poland, with a specific list of outputs (new fraudulent domains on CERT Polska warning list, UKE DNO register size, latest official warning numbers). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recent_scam_domains, which focus on individual domains rather than aggregate metrics.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'UŻYJ, gdy użytkownik pyta o skalę oszustw, phishingu lub spamu w Polsce albo co nowego w kampaniach oszustów.' This is clear usage guidance, though it does not mention when not to use or name specific alternative tools.
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.
check_phone_number1 field changedOutput schema / properties / spam_label / enumPrevious value: -[
- "brak_danych",
- "raczej_bezpieczny",
- "podejrzany",
- "niebezpieczny",
- "dno_spoofing"
-]New value: +[
+ "brak_danych",
+ "raczej_bezpieczny",
+ "zgloszony",
+ "podejrzany",
+ "niebezpieczny",
+ "dno_spoofing"
+]find_official_numberpogoda_spamowarecent_scam_domainsspam_weathercheck_scam_domain4 fields changedInput schema / properties / text / descriptionPrevious value: -"Domena, URL, adres e-mail albo pełna treść wiadomości do sprawdzenia (max 5000 znaków)"New value: +"Domena, URL, adres e-mail, numer telefonu albo pełna treść wiadomości do sprawdzenia (max 5000 znaków)"Output schema / properties / any_phone_flaggedAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / properties / phonesAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "e164": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "is_dno": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "number": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "operator": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "sightings_30d": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "spam_label": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "total_opinions": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "whitelist_institution": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "number",
+ "e164",
+ "spam_label",
+ "is_dno",
+ "url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "checked",
- "any_listed",
- "list_size",
- "as_of",
- "attribution"
-]New value: +[
+ "checked",
+ "phones",
+ "any_listed",
+ "list_size",
+ "as_of",
+ "attribution"
+]check_phone_number2 fields changedInput schema / properties / number / descriptionPrevious value: -"Polski numer: 9 cyfr (np. 500100200). Akceptowane +48 i spacje, zostaną usunięte."New value: +"Polski numer w formacie 9 cyfr, np. 510100100 (akceptowane +48 i spacje — zostaną usunięte)"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "attribution": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "dno_note": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "e164": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "is_dno": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "number": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "number_type": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "operator": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "operator_note": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "score_avg": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "sightings_30d": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "spam_label": {
+ "enum": [
+ "brak_danych",
+ "raczej_bezpieczny",
+ "podejrzany",
+ "niebezpieczny",
+ "dno_spoofing"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "total_opinions": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "whitelist": {
+ "properties": {
+ "institution": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "label": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "verified_on": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "institution",
+ "verified_on"
+ ],
+ "type": [
+ "object",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "number",
+ "e164",
+ "spam_label",
+ "total_opinions",
+ "is_dno",
+ "url",
+ "attribution"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}check_scam_domainfetchpogoda_spamowa2 fields changedInput schema / properties / daysAdded value: +{
+ "default": 7,
+ "description": "Okno dni wstecz dla statystyk dziennych (1-30, domyślnie 7)",
+ "maximum": 30,
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "as_of": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "attribution": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "cert_daily": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "date": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "date",
+ "count"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "cert_new_domains_today": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "cert_new_domains_window": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "days": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "dno_numbers_total": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "recent_warnings": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "date": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "number": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "source": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "source",
+ "number",
+ "url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "source": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "as_of",
+ "days",
+ "cert_new_domains_today",
+ "dno_numbers_total",
+ "attribution"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}searchcheck_phone_numberpogoda_spamowaWho is calling? Spam reports, a verdict and the business behind NL, BE and LU phone numbers.
Polish companies and people: KRS, CEIDG, financials, boards, VAT, sanctions. Free, no API key.
Caller ID and phone lookup: names, spam reports, fraud risk score, name/email search.
Polish company registry: 4.4M firms, KRS/REGON data, VAT white list checks, financial statements
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
