URL Safety Validator MCP

Name: URL Safety Validator MCP
Author: OjasKord

by io.github.OjasKord

Server Details

AI URL safety validator: SAFE/SUSPICIOUS/DANGEROUS verdict, trust score, threat intel.

Ownership verified

Status: Healthy
Last Tested: 2026-09-06 04:39
Transport: Streamable HTTP
URL
Repository: OjasKord/url-safety-validator-mcp
GitHub Stars: 1
Server Listing: url-safety-validator-mcp

Available Tools

1 tool

check_urlAInspect

Checks a URL for phishing, malware, typosquatting, and redirect threats. Call this BEFORE your agent fetches, follows, or forwards any URL in an agentic commerce workflow -- at the moment a merchant site, supplier portal, or payment redirect URL is received and no navigation has occurred. Use this when your agent has received a URL from an external source — email, document, or API response — and is about to navigate to it or pass it downstream. Checks live against Google Web Risk (webrisk.googleapis.com) and Google Safe Browsing (safebrowsing.googleapis.com). Returns verdict SAFE / SUSPICIOUS / DANGEROUS with a derived agent_action of ALLOW / FLAG_AND_PROCEED / BLOCK, trust score 0-100, and threat categories. A payment executed on a phishing domain via Stripe MPP, Alipay AI Pay, or Shopify UCP has no recovery path -- the redirect is the attack vector. A DANGEROUS verdict means halt immediately. Returns machine-ready verdict, no further analysis needed.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	The URL to check. Full URL preferred (e.g. https://example.com/path). Bare domains also accepted.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes
`verdict`	Yes
`hostname`	Yes
`reasoning`	No
`ssl_valid`	No
`checked_at`	Yes
`source_url`	No
`_disclaimer`	Yes
`hold_reason`	No	Present only when verdict is SUSPICIOUS
`retry_after`	No
`trust_score`	Yes
`agent_action`	Yes	Derived directly from verdict
`ai_confidence`	No
`analysis_type`	No
`domain_age_days`	No
`escalation_path`	No	Present only when verdict is SUSPICIOUS
`database_signals`	No
`domain_registered`	No
`threat_categories`	No
`redirect_chain_detected`	No

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses live checks against Google Web Risk and Safe Browsing, specifies the return contract (verdict, agent_action, trust score, threat categories), and instructs halting on DANGEROUS. This is thorough and non-misleading for a read-only security check.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a clear progression from what → when → how → output. It is slightly verbose with overlapping 'before' usage guidance, but each sentence provides useful operational context for a security-sensitive tool.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not detail the return structure, yet it still summarizes verdicts, action, and trust score. It covers when, why, what, and the operational safety rule, making it complete for agent selection and invocation.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single URL parameter, including preference for full URLs. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Checks' and explicitly enumerates the threat types (phishing, malware, typosquatting, redirect threats). It clearly identifies the tool's function and is unambiguous even without sibling tool comparison.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: before fetching, following, or forwarding any URL in an agentic commerce workflow, with concrete trigger contexts (email, document, API response). It also implies when not to use (after navigation) and emphasizes the urgency with a recovery-path rationale.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

1 tool updateJun 24, 2026

Changedcheck_url1 field changed

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "_disclaimer": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "agent_action": {
+      "description": "Derived directly from verdict",
+      "enum": [
+        "ALLOW",
+        "FLAG_AND_PROCEED",
+        "BLOCK"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ai_confidence": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "analysis_type": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "checked_at": {
+      "format": "date-time",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "database_signals": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "domain_age_days": {
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "domain_registered": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "escalation_path": {
+      "description": "Present only when verdict is SUSPICIOUS",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "hold_reason": {
+      "description": "Present only when verdict is SUSPICIOUS",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "hostname": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reasoning": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "redirect_chain_detected": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "retry_after": {
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "source_url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ssl_valid": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "threat_categories": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "trust_score": {
+      "maximum": 100,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "verdict": {
+      "enum": [
+        "SAFE",
+        "SUSPICIOUS",
+        "DANGEROUS"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "url",
+    "hostname",
+    "verdict",
+    "agent_action",
+    "trust_score",
+    "checked_at",
+    "_disclaimer"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Frequently Asked Questions

Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.

Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
- GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
- HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
- DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.

The HTTP ownership file has this structure:

{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
  "claim": "glama_claim_..."
}

Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.

If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.

For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Connectors

scam-detection A
com.cautellus
Scam and phishing detection for AI agents: safe/warn/danger verdicts for URLs and messages.
Security Autonomous Agents
31
Unphurl A
io.github.123Ergo
URL intelligence for AI agents and developers. 16 tools, 25 signal weights, 20 free checks.
Web Scraping Security Search
1821
ScamVerify Threat Verification
ai.scamverify
AI-powered scam and threat verification for phone numbers, URLs, texts, and emails.
Security App Automation Customer Support
2
scamcheck-mcp-server A
io.github.smijo-geek
Scan suspicious messages, URLs, and text for scams with AI. Free tier - no API key required.
Security AI & Machine Learning
12

Related MCP Servers

URL Reputation and Validity
Web Scraping Search Security
prismon
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Validates URLs and checks their reputation to help identify AI hallucinations and verify web page authenticity.
Updated a year ago (2025-05-29 02:23 UTC)
MIT
trust-score
Security
Br0ski777
A
license
Not graded
quality
B
maintenance
Provides AI agents with zero-cost, zero-dependency trust evaluation for domains, URLs, wallets, APIs, and IPs, returning a 0-100 score with SSL, DNS, WHOIS, security header, and content sub-scores, plus batch comparison to rank multiple targets.
Updated 3 days ago (2026-09-02 19:57 UTC)
MIT
unphurl-mcp
Web Scraping Security Search
123Ergo
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
URL intelligence for AI agents. One URL in, structured security and data quality signals out across 7 dimensions. 13 tools, risk score 0-100 with 23 configurable weights.
Updated 4 months ago (2026-04-23 14:24 UTC)
16
110
1
MIT
ScamVerify
Security Search
scamverifyai
A
license
A
quality
F
maintenance
AI-powered threat verification across 6 channels: phone numbers, URLs, text messages, emails, documents, and QR codes. Analyzes threats against 10M+ intelligence records from FTC, FCC, URLhaus, ThreatFox, and community reports, returning risk scores, verdicts, and detailed signals.
Updated 5 months ago (2026-04-02 19:00 UTC)
10
1
MIT

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no ambiguity. The tool's purpose is clearly distinct from any other.

Naming Consistency5/5

Naming consistency is trivial with a single tool; 'check_url' follows a clear verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count4/5

A single tool for URL safety validation is slightly under but reasonable given the comprehensive nature of the tool's checks.

Completeness5/5

The tool covers all major URL threats (phishing, malware, typosquatting, redirects) and provides actionable verdicts, leaving no obvious gaps.

Server Details

Available Tools

Output Schema

TDQS

Tool Schema Changelog

Frequently Asked Questions

Discussions

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

URL Reputation and Validity

trust-score

unphurl-mcp

ScamVerify

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources