Skip to main content
Glama
relayshield

relayshield-mcp

Official

check_sim_swap

Check if a phone number has experienced a SIM swap or eSIM change in the last 24 hours. Use this to verify service disruptions or assess SMS authentication risks.

Instructions

Detect whether a SIM swap or eSIM provisioning event has occurred on a phone number in the last 24 hours. Uses Twilio Lookup v2 with live carrier data. Returns swapped (bool), swap timestamp, and current carrier. Use when a user reports losing mobile service, or before completing a high-risk action that depends on SMS-based authentication. Pay-as-you-go: $0.25 USDC per check (x402 on Base). Subscription: rapidapi.com/relayshield

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
phoneYesPhone number in E.164 format (e.g. +14155551234)

Implementation Reference

  • The tool is registered in list_tools() with name='check_sim_swap', description explaining SIM swap detection, and inputSchema requiring a 'phone' in E.164 format.
    types.Tool(
        name="check_sim_swap",
        description=(
            "Detect whether a SIM swap or eSIM provisioning event has occurred on a phone number "
            "in the last 24 hours. Uses Twilio Lookup v2 with live carrier data. "
            "Returns swapped (bool), swap timestamp, and current carrier. "
            "Use when a user reports losing mobile service, or before completing a high-risk "
            "action that depends on SMS-based authentication. "
            "Pay-as-you-go: $0.25 USDC per check (x402 on Base). "
            "Subscription: rapidapi.com/relayshield"
        ),
        inputSchema={
            "type": "object",
            "required": ["phone"],
            "properties": {
                "phone": {
                    "type": "string",
                    "description": "Phone number in E.164 format (e.g. +14155551234)",
                    "pattern": "^\\+[1-9]\\d{6,14}$",
                }
            },
        },
    ),
  • The handler dispatches a POST request to the /sim-swap endpoint, passing the phone argument as JSON.
    if name == "check_sim_swap":
        return await client.post(
            f"{base}/sim-swap",
            headers=headers,
            json={"phone": arguments["phone"]},
        )
  • PAYG pricing dictionary entry: check_sim_swap costs $0.25 USDC.
        "check_sim_swap":          "$0.25 USDC",
        "check_domain_lookalikes": "$0.50 USDC",
        "check_oauth_watchlist":   "$0.15 USDC",
        "check_scan_result":       "$0.00 USDC (free — poll result of a paid scan)",
        "scan_url":                "coming soon",
        "scan_file":               "coming soon",
    }
  • Comment/docstring documenting PAYG pricing for check_sim_swap as $0.25.
    check_sim_swap          $0.25
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full weight. It discloses the output (swapped bool, timestamp, carrier), live carrier data source, and pricing ($0.25 per check). It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a simple check tool this provides adequate behavioral context.

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?

The description is three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: core functionality, usage guidance, and pricing. No filler; front-loaded with the most critical 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage context, return values, time window, data source, and cost. It is self-contained and leaves no significant gaps.

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?

The single parameter 'phone' is fully described in the schema (E.164 format, pattern). The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning Twilio Lookup v2; thus baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool detects SIM swap or eSIM provisioning events on a phone number within the last 24 hours. It uses a specific verb ('detect') and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_breach or check_domain_lookalikes by focusing on carrier events.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: use when a user reports losing mobile service or before high-risk actions depending on SMS authentication. While no exclusions are stated, the context is clear and siblings are sufficiently different, making ambiguity low.

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/relayshield/relayshield-mcp'

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