Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-route-master

mcp-route-master

by CoderShivamGusain
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Check a booking link or message for scams

check_booking_safety
Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks booking links, phone numbers, or messages for bus-booking scams in India, flagging fake sites, OTP/UPI/card requests, personal UPI payments, WhatsApp bookings, remote access, and refund tricks.

Instructions

Check a booking link, phone number or message for common bus-booking scams in India.

Flags fake or look-alike websites, requests for OTP/UPI PIN/card details, payment to personal UPI IDs, WhatsApp bookings, remote-access apps and refund tricks. Works offline; a clean result means no known red flags, not a guarantee.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "check_booking_safety"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesA link, phone number, SMS, WhatsApp message or email text about a bus booking, payment or refund, pasted as-is.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-open-world behavior, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: it discloses that the check runs offline and, critically, that a clean result means 'no known red flags, not a guarantee'. That caveat is genuine behavioral information an agent needs to report results honestly. It omits what a flagged result actually returns, which keeps it from 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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what is checked and where, the second lists the red-flag categories and the important non-guarantee caveat. No padding and nothing buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-input, no-output-schema checker the description covers purpose, input types, detection categories and result interpretation. The only gap is that it doesn't indicate the shape of a flagged response (e.g. whether reasons or a risk score come back), which an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling.

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 the single 'content' parameter has a thorough description covering link, phone, SMS, WhatsApp and email text. The description restates the same input types, so it adds little beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies rather than a penalty.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') against a specific resource ('booking link, phone number or message') and narrows scope to 'common bus-booking scams in India'. No sibling tool does anything similar, so an agent can route to it unambiguously from the name plus first sentence.

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?

It enumerates the accepted inputs (link, phone number, SMS/WhatsApp/email text) which tells the agent exactly what to feed it, and the framing 'common bus-booking scams' implies the pre-payment / suspicious-message context. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming an alternative sibling for related questions.

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