Skip to main content
Glama
ShieldLabs-ai

@shieldlabs-ai/mcp

Official

Get identification

shieldlabs_get_identification
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the verdict of one identification from the ShieldLabs History API by request ID, returning risk score, band, signals, detection flags, and visitor/device details.

Instructions

Read the verdict of one identification by its request ID from the ShieldLabs History API: Risk Score and band, weighted risk signals, the 19 detection flags, visitor, device, cookie and session IDs, User HID, public and local IP with country, connection type, OS, browser and traffic source.

Use it when you have the request ID of a protected action (signup, login, payment) and need its verdict. The browser only ever sees the request ID; the verdict is read here, server-side.

Scoring is asynchronous: the History row appears about 1 to 3 seconds after the browser call and can be refined for up to about 10 seconds while follow-up checks finish. This tool returns the first version of the row it finds. A verdict read in those first seconds can still be refined: read it again (wait=false is enough) once observed_at is about 10 seconds in the past for the final state. Integrations that start the identification when the user begins the action (for example on the first interaction with a form) find the row stored by the time the action reaches their backend.

With wait=true it polls for up to about 10 seconds in total. A 429, a 5xx or a network error does not end the wait (its error is returned only when the last poll failed); a wrong key or base URL ends it at once.

Args:

  • request_id (string): UUID returned by the browser agent

  • wait (boolean): poll until the verdict is stored, for up to about 10 s in total (default true); false reads once

  • response_format ('markdown' | 'json'): default 'markdown'

Returns (json): { "found": true, "identification": { request_id, visitor_id, device_id, session_id, cookie_id, user_hid, domain, public_ip: { ip, country }, local_ip: { ip, country }, connection_type, os, browser, device_type, traffic_source: { channel, referrer_domain, landing_url, click_id_type, utm_source, utm_medium, utm_campaign, utm_content, utm_term }, risk_score, risk_band, signals: [{ name, weight, description: null }], detection_flags: { vpn, proxy, tor, ... }, observed_at, source, truncated_fields?, escaped_fields? }, "untrusted_data_note": string }

Errors: an error result when no identification is stored for the request ID (treat it as unverified, never as clean), when the key is wrong (401), or when the rate limit (429) or a server or network error prevents the read.

Next steps: shieldlabs_explain_risk_score explains the score; shieldlabs_summarize_entity with the device_id or user_hid shows the history around it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
waitNoWait for the verdict when the identification is not stored yet, polling for up to about 10 seconds in total (default true). Use false to read once, for example to read a refined verdict again.
request_idYesRequest ID of one identification: the UUID the browser agent returned for the protected action, for example "02f1d973-84db-4156-a7f7-e799e6bf389b"
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' (default) for readable text, 'json' for structured datamarkdown

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
foundYes
identificationYes
untrusted_data_noteYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses non-obvious asynchronous behavior: the row appears 1-3 s after the browser call, can be refined for ~10 s, and the tool returns the first version found, with the rule to re-read once observed_at is ~10 s old. It also documents polling semantics and that 429/5xx/network errors do not terminate the wait while a bad key does, plus that a missing identification must be treated as unverified, never clean.

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 purpose and the async-timing caveats are front-loaded and each earns its place, but the verbatim Args and Returns blocks duplicate the input schema and the existing output schema, adding bulk without new information.

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?

For a read tool with annotations covering safety, a 100%-covered schema, and an output schema, the description covers the remaining gaps: async timing, polling and error semantics, and the correct interpretation of a missing verdict. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so request_id, wait and response_format are already fully documented in the schema, including the UUID pattern and defaults. The description's Args block largely restates that, though it does add the operational hint that wait=false suffices to re-read a refined verdict.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (Read) and resource (the verdict of one identification by request ID) and enumerates the concrete payload fields returned. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like shieldlabs_search_history or shieldlabs_summarize_entity, which operate on entities rather than a single request ID.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states exactly when to use it ('when you have the request ID of a protected action ... and need its verdict') and adds the key situational fact that the browser only sees the request ID while the verdict must be read server-side. It also names alternatives in Next steps (shieldlabs_explain_risk_score, shieldlabs_summarize_entity) and gives the re-read condition.

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