Skip to main content
Glama
scamverifyai

ScamVerify

check_text

Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyze text messages for scam indicators by extracting phone numbers and URLs, then cross-referencing them with threat intelligence to identify scam types, red flags, and calculate risk scores.

Instructions

Analyze a text/SMS message for scam indicators. Extracts and cross-references embedded phone numbers and URLs. AI analysis identifies scam type, red flags, and risk level. Returns unified risk score combining AI and sub-lookup signals.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesText message content to analyze (max 5000 characters)
from_numberNoSender phone number, if known

Implementation Reference

  • Implementation of the 'check_text' MCP tool, which analyzes text messages for scam indicators using an API call.
    // 3. check_text
    server.tool(
      'check_text',
      'Analyze a text/SMS message for scam indicators. Extracts and cross-references embedded phone numbers and URLs. AI analysis identifies scam type, red flags, and risk level. Returns unified risk score combining AI and sub-lookup signals.',
      {
        message: z.string().describe('Text message content to analyze (max 5000 characters)'),
        from_number: z.string().optional().describe('Sender phone number, if known'),
      },
      {
        title: 'Analyze Text Message',
        readOnlyHint: true,
        destructiveHint: false,
        idempotentHint: true,
        openWorldHint: true,
      },
      async ({ message, from_number }) => {
        try {
          const body: Record<string, unknown> = { message };
          if (from_number) body.from_number = from_number;
          const data = await apiPost('/api/v1/text/analyze', body);
          return jsonResult(data);
        } catch (err) {
          return errorResult(err instanceof Error ? err.message : 'Text analysis failed');
        }
      },
    );
Behavior4/5

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

While annotations declare read-only/idempotent properties, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses the internal pipeline (extracting/cross-referencing phone numbers and URLs, AI analysis for scam types/red flags) and explains how the risk score is derived ('combining AI and sub-lookup signals'). This aligns with openWorldHint=true by implying external lookups without contradicting any annotations.

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?

Four substantive sentences with zero waste: sentence 1 states purpose, sentence 2 describes extraction behavior, sentence 3 covers AI analysis, and sentence 4 explains return values. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description appropriately explains return values ('unified risk score'). It adequately covers the tool's complexity (AI analysis, cross-referencing) for a scam detection utility. A score of 5 would require mentioning error conditions or score scale details.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'text/SMS message' which maps to the 'message' parameter, but does not add semantic details beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format expectations for 'from_number' or detailed usage guidance for optional parameters).

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 opens with a specific verb ('Analyze'), resource ('text/SMS message'), and goal ('scam indicators'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like check_email, check_url, and check_document by specifying the medium as text/SMS.

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?

The description provides clear context that this tool is specifically for text/SMS messages, implicitly distinguishing it from check_email, check_document, and other 'check_' siblings. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance regarding the optional 'from_number' parameter or explicit comparisons to alternatives.

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/scamverifyai/scamverify-mcp'

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