Skip to main content
Glama
1tylermitchell

Sairen

by 1tylermitchell
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

canary_detector

Scan HTML payloads to detect invisible honeypots, DNS canary tokens, zero-width steganography, and pixel trackers, returning a structured threat report with risk score and per-finding positions.

Instructions

    [Cost: $0.0020 USDC on Base & Solana] Sub-2ms honeypot & canary trap scanner for HTML payloads.

    Detects: invisible DOM honeypots, DNS canary tokens (canarytokens.org / interactsh),
    zero-width Unicode steganography, CSS url() tracking beacons, pixel-sized iframes/images,
    obfuscated trap links, meta-refresh redirects, form honeypot fields, noscript beacons.

    Returns structured threat report with risk_score (0–100), threat_level
    (clean/low/medium/high/critical), and per-finding positions.

    Args:
        html: Raw HTML content to scan.
        url: Optional source URL for context enrichment.
        checks: List of check names to enable (default: all).
                Values: dns_canary, zero_width, hidden_elements, css_beacons,
                pixel_trackers, trap_links, meta_refresh, form_honeypots,
                noscript_beacons, aria_hidden
        max_findings_per_type: Max findings per category, 1-50 (default: 10).
        payment_signature: x402 Base USDC transaction hash (defaults to dev mock key).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNo
htmlYes
checksNo
payment_signatureNo
max_findings_per_typeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: 2ms performance, detection capabilities, returned report structure (risk_score, threat_level, finding positions), and the payment_signature defaulting to a dev mock key. It does not mention side effects or auth requirements, but the tool is clearly a read-only scanner, and these details are useful for an agent.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is structured with clear sections: cost, purpose, detections, return, and args. It front-loads the core purpose and detection list. It includes a cost line that may be extraneous but is relevant for a paid tool. Overall, it is efficient and well-organized, though slightly longer than necessary.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameters with explanations, defines defaults, describes the output structure, and even includes payment details. The only minor gap is handling of error conditions, but this is not critical for the agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it explains the purpose of each argument, lists valid values for 'checks' (ten check names), specifies the range for 'max_findings_per_type' (1-50, default 10), and clarifies that 'payment_signature' is an x402 Base USDC transaction hash with a dev mock default. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states the tool is a 'honeypot & canary trap scanner for HTML payloads' and enumerates nine specific detection categories. This is a specific verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from siblings like 'scan_payload_safety' by the exhaustive list of what it detects and the explicit output format.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for HTML payload analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., scan_payload_safety) nor when not to use it. It only provides general context, so agents must infer applicability.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools