Skip to main content
Glama
alberthild

ShieldAPI MCP

shieldapi.check_url

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check URLs for malware, phishing, and security threats using URLhaus database and heuristic analysis to identify potentially dangerous links.

Instructions

Check a URL for malware, phishing, and other threats. Uses URLhaus + heuristic analysis.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe URL to check (e.g. https://example.com)

Implementation Reference

  • The handler for 'shieldapi.check_url' is dynamically registered in a loop that iterates over the `TOOLS` object. The handler invokes `callShieldApi` with the 'check-url' endpoint.
    for (const [name, def] of Object.entries(TOOLS)) {
      server.tool(
        name,
        def.description,
        { [def.param]: z.string().describe(def.paramDesc) },
        { ...readOnlyAnnotations, title: TOOL_TITLES[name] || name },
        async (params) => formatResult(await callShieldApi(def.endpoint, params as Record<string, string>))
      );
  • src/index.ts:32-37 (registration)
    Definition of the 'shieldapi.check_url' tool configuration.
    'shieldapi.check_url': {
      description: 'Check a URL for malware, phishing, and other threats. Uses URLhaus + heuristic analysis.',
      param: 'url',
      paramDesc: 'The URL to check (e.g. https://example.com)',
      endpoint: 'check-url',
    },
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent), so the description appropriately focuses on functional behavior by disclosing threat detection scope (malware/phishing) and underlying data sources (URLhaus + heuristic analysis), adding meaningful context beyond the structured hints.

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 tightly constructed sentences with zero waste: first establishes functionality, second establishes methodology. Every word earns its place; appropriately front-loaded with the core action.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with comprehensive annotations and high schema coverage, the description is sufficient. It appropriately omits redundant output schema details while covering the essential 'what' and 'how' of the threat detection.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the parameter is well-documented in the schema itself. The description does not add additional parameter semantics (format constraints, normalization rules) beyond the schema's example, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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') and resource ('URL') with explicit threat categories ('malware, phishing, and other threats'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like check_domain or check_email by specifying 'URL' as the target resource type.

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 provides implicit usage guidance through specificity ('URL' vs siblings' domain/email/IP), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or distinctions from similar tools like check_domain or full_scan. It does not mention prerequisites or rate limits.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/alberthild/shield-api-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server