Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ffraud

ffraud

Official
by FFraud-com
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

Related Servers

Alternatives to ffraud

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • RMI MCP + x402 Gateway

      Rug-Munch-Media-LLC
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Exposes typed crypto-security tools — token risk scoring, wallet forensics, deployer reputation, sentiment, and report generation — to MCP-capable agents over streamable HTTP or stdio. Gates premium calls behind per-request x402 crypto micropayments, delegating verification and settlement to a self-hosted facilitator and failing closed when payment cannot be confirmed.
      MIT

    • com.arnakoff/api

      arnakoff
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables users to check a site, e-mail, phone number, IBAN, or SIREN against public sources and receive sourced anti-scam signals in French. The same checks are available remotely over MCP and locally via stdio, sharing the HTTP API's key and quota.
      AGPL 3.0
    • Kaidn-mcp

      Kaidn-mcpofficial

      Kaidn-io
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Investigate fraud directly from Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-compatible client. Analyze suspicious activity with clear, evidence-backed verdicts. Pivot from a single signup to every account sharing the same device, IP address, or email inbox. Check entities against a cross-operator abuse network, review linked accounts, and efficiently process your fraud review queue. Read-only by default, with no r
      10
      67 npm
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    A4.1/5.0

    Scored across 5 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    email_check, domain_check, ip_check and site_check each target a clearly different entity or scope (address vs domain reputation vs full website security), so selection is mostly obvious. The only friction is ip_check vs ip_reports, which both return abuse history for an IP, and to a lesser degree site_check vs domain_check, which both consult phishing lists — though descriptions do draw the line (score vs evidence, single lookup vs full site audit).

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Four of five tools follow a clean <entity>_check pattern (email_check, domain_check, ip_check, site_check), which makes the set easy to scan. ip_reports is the one deviation, a noun-only, plural form that breaks the verb/noun rhythm and slightly obscures that it is another IP-scoped lookup.

    Tool Count5/5

    Five tools covering four entity types plus an evidence drill-down is tightly scoped with no filler. Each tool maps to a distinct check an agent would actually perform before a signup, checkout or API call.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the main fraud triage entities — email, domain, IP and whole-site posture — with both a score and an evidence path, which is solid lifecycle coverage for a lookup service. The notable gap is the absence of a phone/number check (a standard fraud signal alongside email and IP) and of any combined or batch operation for screening several indicators in one call.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo recent community issues

    Resources