Skip to main content
Glama
Rajkumar2002-Rk

fraud-mcp

Related Servers

Alternatives to fraud-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables human-led defensive cyber investigations by letting agents and people share visible case state, review synthetic evidence metadata, prioritize explainable signals, draft findings that require human approval, and generate incident summaries.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      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
      232 npm
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      AI-powered fraud detection and investigation platform that exposes tools for querying, scoring, and investigating financial applications using LangGraph, MLflow, and SQLite in-memory.
      -

    TDQS

    A4.4/5.0

    Scored across 4 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: transaction retrieval, rule evaluation, device history lookup, and case flagging. The descriptions explicitly differentiate evidence from verdicts and mandate a workflow, leaving no ambiguity between tools.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern (get_transactions, evaluate_fraud_rules, lookup_device_history, flag_case). The minor deviation is 'flag_case' which could be 'create_case' for consistency, but the pattern is consistent enough to be highly predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 4 tools, the server is lean and focused on the core fraud investigation workflow: read, evaluate, pivot, and act. The count is at the lower end of the acceptable range but each tool is essential and earns its place, making the small set well-scoped.

    Completeness4/5

    The server covers the primary investigation lifecycle well: retrieving evidence, evaluating rules, pivoting on device intelligence, and recording outcomes. An obvious gap is the lack of a tool to comment on or update an existing case (e.g., edit_case), but the core workflow is complete and the missing piece is a minor extension.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues