Polish phone number lookup: who called, spam and scam checks, UKE DNO registry, CERT phishing stats
Sprawdź reputację polskiego numeru telefonu. UŻYJ, gdy użytkownik pyta: kto dzwonił, czy numer to spam/oszustwo, czy telefon rzekomo z banku lub urzędu jest prawdziwy. Zwraca operatora z zakresów UKE (z notą o przenośności MNP), etykietę ryzyka z opinii, status w wykazie DNO UKE (połączenie przychodzące z numeru DNO jest sfałszowane — spoofing), wpis z Białej Listy oficjalnych infolinii i liczniki zgłoszeń. Dane: numertel.pl.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes | Polski numer w formacie 9 cyfr, np. 510100100 (akceptowane +48 i spacje — zostaną usunięte) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | |
| e164 | Yes | |
| is_dno | Yes | |
| number | Yes | |
| dno_note | No | |
| operator | No | |
| score_avg | No | |
| whitelist | No | |
| spam_label | Yes | |
| attribution | Yes | |
| number_type | No | |
| operator_note | No | |
| sightings_30d | No | |
| total_opinions | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by detailing the exact data returned (operator, risk label, DNO status, white list, counters) and explains a nuanced behavior: DNO numbers indicate spoofing. It also cites the data source (numertel.pl), which is useful for trust assessment. This goes beyond a mere statement of safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, using two sentences to convey purpose, usage triggers, and output details. It is front-loaded with the action ('Sprawdź reputację') and organized logically: action first, then when to use, then return elements. Every clause adds relevant information without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read-only lookup tool with a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and even a caveat about DNO/spoofing. It is comprehensive enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameter semantics with a description for 'number' that mentions format, accepted +48 prefix, and spaces being removed. The tool description adds little extra beyond restating that it handles Polish numbers, since the schema already provides detailed formatting guidance. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Sprawdź reputację polskiego numeru telefonu' (check the reputation of a Polish phone number). It also lists specific user queries that should trigger use, such as 'kto dzwonił' (who called) or 'czy numer to spam/oszustwo' (is the number spam/scam), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_scam_domain and find_official_number.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'UŻYJ, gdy użytkownik pyta: kto dzwonił, czy numer to spam/oszustwo, czy telefon rzekomo z banku lub urzędu jest prawdziwy.' This is clear and actionable. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, though the sibling list and the described features imply appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Sprawdza wklejoną podejrzaną wiadomość: (1) domeny, linki i adresy e-mail przeciw państwowej Liście Ostrzeżeń CERT Polska (mirror ~129 tys. domen oszustów), (2) polskie numery telefonów z treści przeciw bazie NumerTel (wykaz DNO UKE = spoofing, Biała Lista oficjalnych infolinii, zgłoszenia spamu). UŻYJ, gdy użytkownik pyta: czy ten link/strona/mail jest bezpieczny, albo wkleja całego SMS-a lub e-mail z linkiem i numerem. Przyjmuje pojedynczą domenę, URL, e-mail, numer lub CAŁĄ treść wiadomości (rozpoznaje zapisy evil[.]pl, hxxp:// i +48). Werdykt deterministyczny, zero LLM. Dane: numertel.pl.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Domena, URL, adres e-mail, numer telefonu albo pełna treść wiadomości do sprawdzenia (max 5000 znaków) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| as_of | Yes | |
| phones | Yes | |
| source | No | |
| checked | Yes | |
| list_size | Yes | |
| any_listed | Yes | |
| attribution | Yes | |
| any_phone_flagged | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly and idempotent behavior, so the description adds valuable extra context: the verdict is deterministic ('Werdykt deterministyczny, zero LLM') and the data sources are clearly attributed (CERT Polska, NumerTel, numertel.pl). It also discloses recognition of obfuscated formats, which helps set expectations. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is dense but well-structured, front-loading the core action, then usage trigger, then acceptable inputs, then behavioral guarantees. Every sentence earns its place: it packs purpose, scope, examples, and data provenance without fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it checks, when to use it, what inputs it accepts, how it behaves (deterministic), and where its data comes from. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the schema already documents the 'text' parameter well, the description meaningfully enriches it by explaining accepted input forms (single domain, URL, email, number, or entire message) and how obfuscated formats are handled (evil[.]pl, hxxp://, +48). This goes beyond the schema's basic type description and gives the agent practical guidance for what to pass.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb-resource pair: checking pasted suspicious messages against CERT Polska's warning list and NumerTel phone database. It explicitly lists the artifact types (domains, links, emails, phone numbers) and distinguishes itself from the phone-only sibling tool by handling whole messages and multiple entity types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides an explicit trigger condition: 'UŻYJ, gdy użytkownik pyta: czy ten link/strona/mail jest bezpieczny...' This is strong when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools (e.g., check_phone_number) for phone-only queries, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Pobiera pełną kartę reputacji numeru po id zwróconym przez search (9 cyfr). Zwraca te same dane co check_phone_number wraz z linkiem do strony numeru.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Id z wyników search: polski numer, 9 cyfr |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: it returns the same data as check_phone_number plus a link to the number's page. However, it doesn't describe error handling or edge cases, which is acceptable given the low complexity and annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no fluff. Every word serves a purpose, and it remains concise while conveying key details about input and output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, annotations present, no output schema), the description is sufficient. It explains the input source and the output relationship to check_phone_number, providing enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly. Slight deduction for not detailing the exact return structure, but this is mitigated by the 'same data as check_phone_number' reference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', and the description essentially repeats what the schema already states (Polish number, 9 digits). No additional semantic value is added beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: fetching a full number reputation card by ID returned from search. It also specifies the ID format (9 digits) and distinguishes this from check_phone_number by noting it returns the same data plus a link to the number's page.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates when to use this tool (after obtaining an ID from search) and contrasts it with check_phone_number, implying this is a more complete variant. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the context provides sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Znajdź PRAWDZIWY, oficjalny numer telefonu banku, urzędu lub operatora w Polsce. UŻYJ, gdy użytkownik pyta: jaki jest oficjalny numer lub infolinia danej instytucji (np. ZUS, mBank, PKO, NFZ), albo chce zweryfikować, czy numer podany w wiadomości to faktyczna infolinia. Zwraca zweryfikowane numery z Białej Listy NumerTel ze źródłem (link do oficjalnej strony) i datą weryfikacji. Uwaga: dzwoniąc NA te numery trafisz do instytucji, ale połączenie PRZYCHODZĄCE z nich może być sfałszowane (spoofing). Dane: numertel.pl.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| institution | Yes | Nazwa instytucji: bank, urząd lub operator, np. „ZUS”, „mBank”, „PKO”, „NFZ”, „Orange” |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | No | |
| count | Yes | |
| query | Yes | |
| matches | Yes | |
| attribution | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the warning about spoofing of incoming calls, the data source (numertel.pl), and the return fields (source link, verification date). No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage, returns, and a security warning. Each sentence earns its place, though the use of all-caps emphasis is slightly noisy and could be toned down. It is efficient but not maximally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
All essential contextual aspects are covered: what it does, when to use it, what it returns (verified numbers with source link and verification date), and a critical security caveat about spoofing. The output schema exists, so return details are handled. Low complexity (one parameter) makes this description complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces examples of institution names (ZUS, mBank, PKO, NFZ) but does not add new semantic details beyond the schema's parameter description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool finds the REAL, official phone number for banks, offices, or operators in Poland, and can also verify if a number in a message is the official hotline. It uses a specific verb ('Znajdź') and resource, and is distinct from siblings like check_phone_number which likely checks scam numbers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'UŻYJ, gdy użytkownik pyta...' and lists concrete use cases (e.g., asking for official number or verifying a provided number). However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or alternatives, so it misses the 'when-not' and 'alternatives' part for a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Najnowsze domeny phishingowe z państwowej Listy Ostrzeżeń CERT Polska. UŻYJ, gdy użytkownik pyta o świeże lub aktualne strony oszustów, nowe kampanie phishingowe albo przykłady oszukańczych domen w Polsce. Zwraca ostatnio dodane domeny w zapisie defanged (evil[.]pl) — NIGDY nie zamieniaj ich w klikalne linki. Dane otwarte CC-BY: numertel.pl.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Ile najnowszych domen zwrócić (1-50, domyślnie 15) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| as_of | Yes | |
| count | Yes | |
| source | No | |
| domains | Yes | |
| list_size | Yes | |
| attribution | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent; the description adds important behavioral details: domains are returned defanged (evil[.]pl) and must never be turned into clickable links. It also credits the open data source, giving additional transparency beyond schema/annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loads the core function before adding usage guidance and a safety warning. Each segment serves a purpose; no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs: purpose, when to use, return format with safety caveat, and data source. No significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single optional parameter 'limit' is fully described in the input schema (1-50, default 15), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource (CERT Polska warning list) and specifies the returned content (latest phishing domains). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating the exact user query scenario ('UŻYJ, gdy...'), making purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use it: when the user asks about fresh/current scam sites, new phishing campaigns, or examples of fraudulent domains in Poland. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Wyszukiwanie w bazie NumerTel: podaj polski numer telefonu (zwróci jego kartę reputacji) ALBO nazwę banku/urzędu/operatora (zwróci zweryfikowane oficjalne numery z Białej Listy infolinii). Wyniki zawierają id, title i url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Numer telefonu (9 cyfr / +48...) lub nazwa instytucji, np. 'mBank', 'ZUS' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the Polish number format, the 'White List' source for verified official numbers, and that results contain id, title, and url. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Search in NumerTel database'), and contains no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the two modes and the result structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a single parameter, no output schema, and good annotations, the description fully compensates for the missing output schema by stating the result fields. It also mentions the verified nature of the official numbers. No crucial information is missing for a tool of this simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the query parameter, including examples ('mBank', 'ZUS'). The description repeats essentially the same information (number or institution name) without adding new semantic details. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool searches the NumerTel database, with two distinct modes: searching by Polish phone number to get a reputation card, or by institution name to get verified official numbers. It explicitly mentions the result fields (id, title, url), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiated from siblings like check_phone_number.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: when a phone number or institution name needs to be looked up in the database. It outlines the two types of queries accepted. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as check_phone_number or find_official_number, so it stops short of a full when-not/alternatives explanation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Aktualne wskaźniki nadużyć telefonicznych w Polsce. UŻYJ, gdy użytkownik pyta o skalę oszustw, phishingu lub spamu w Polsce albo co nowego w kampaniach oszustów. Zwraca: nowe domeny oszustów na Liście Ostrzeżeń CERT Polska (dziś + dziennie w zadanym oknie), rozmiar wykazu DNO UKE i ostatnie numery z oficjalnych ostrzeżeń urzędów. Dane otwarte CC-BY: numertel.pl.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Okno dni wstecz dla statystyk dziennych (1-30, domyślnie 7) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| days | Yes | |
| as_of | Yes | |
| source | No | |
| cert_daily | No | |
| attribution | Yes | |
| recent_warnings | No | |
| dno_numbers_total | Yes | |
| cert_new_domains_today | Yes | |
| cert_new_domains_window | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context: the specific data sources (CERT Polska, UKE), the time-window behavior, and the open-data license (CC-BY). This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations without contradicting them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: a one-line purpose declaration, a clear 'UŻYJ, gdy...' usage trigger, a concise list of return values, and a data source/attribution note. Every sentence earns its place, and it remains compact despite the multiple pieces of information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no nested objects, output schema present) and the presence of annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and data provenance. No significant gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: the 'days' parameter is fully described in the schema (window in days, default 7, min/max). The description only lightly echoes this via 'w zadanym oknie', adding minimal semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns current phone abuse indicators in Poland, with a specific list of outputs (new fraudulent domains on CERT Polska warning list, UKE DNO register size, latest official warning numbers). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recent_scam_domains, which focus on individual domains rather than aggregate metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'UŻYJ, gdy użytkownik pyta o skalę oszustw, phishingu lub spamu w Polsce albo co nowego w kampaniach oszustów.' This is clear usage guidance, though it does not mention when not to use or name specific alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
find_official_numberpogoda_spamowarecent_scam_domainsspam_weathercheck_scam_domain4 fields changedInput schema / properties / text / descriptionPrevious value: -"Domena, URL, adres e-mail albo pełna treść wiadomości do sprawdzenia (max 5000 znaków)"New value: +"Domena, URL, adres e-mail, numer telefonu albo pełna treść wiadomości do sprawdzenia (max 5000 znaków)"Output schema / properties / any_phone_flaggedAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / properties / phonesAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "e164": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "is_dno": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "number": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "operator": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "sightings_30d": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "spam_label": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "total_opinions": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "whitelist_institution": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "number",
+ "e164",
+ "spam_label",
+ "is_dno",
+ "url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "checked",
- "any_listed",
- "list_size",
- "as_of",
- "attribution"
-]New value: +[
+ "checked",
+ "phones",
+ "any_listed",
+ "list_size",
+ "as_of",
+ "attribution"
+]check_phone_number2 fields changedInput schema / properties / number / descriptionPrevious value: -"Polski numer: 9 cyfr (np. 500100200). Akceptowane +48 i spacje, zostaną usunięte."New value: +"Polski numer w formacie 9 cyfr, np. 510100100 (akceptowane +48 i spacje — zostaną usunięte)"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "attribution": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "dno_note": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "e164": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "is_dno": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "number": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "number_type": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "operator": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "operator_note": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "score_avg": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "sightings_30d": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "spam_label": {
+ "enum": [
+ "brak_danych",
+ "raczej_bezpieczny",
+ "podejrzany",
+ "niebezpieczny",
+ "dno_spoofing"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "total_opinions": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "whitelist": {
+ "properties": {
+ "institution": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "label": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "verified_on": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "institution",
+ "verified_on"
+ ],
+ "type": [
+ "object",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "number",
+ "e164",
+ "spam_label",
+ "total_opinions",
+ "is_dno",
+ "url",
+ "attribution"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}check_scam_domainfetchpogoda_spamowa2 fields changedInput schema / properties / daysAdded value: +{
+ "default": 7,
+ "description": "Okno dni wstecz dla statystyk dziennych (1-30, domyślnie 7)",
+ "maximum": 30,
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "as_of": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "attribution": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "cert_daily": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "date": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "date",
+ "count"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "cert_new_domains_today": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "cert_new_domains_window": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "days": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "dno_numbers_total": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "recent_warnings": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "date": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "number": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "source": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "source",
+ "number",
+ "url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "source": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "as_of",
+ "days",
+ "cert_new_domains_today",
+ "dno_numbers_total",
+ "attribution"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}searchcheck_phone_numberpogoda_spamowaClaiming 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.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Polish company registry: 4.4M firms, KRS/REGON data, VAT white list checks, financial statements
Who-called phone lookups: community verdict, spam rating, operator and reviews (ktozvonil.net).
Is this number safe to call or text right now? Live carrier, CNAM, spam and SMS checks for agents.
Phone carrier lookup, append, verification, DNC, and fraud data services.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Some tools overlap in functionality: check_phone_number and check_scam_domain both accept phone numbers, and search and find_official_number both return official numbers. The descriptions differentiate them, but an agent might be unsure which tool is best for a given query.
Tool names follow mixed conventions: check_phone_number and check_scam_domain use verb_noun, fetch and search are bare verbs, recent_scam_domains is adjective_noun, and spam_weather is noun_noun. There is no consistent naming pattern across the set.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a phone and scam reputation service. Each tool has a distinct role, and the count feels neither sparse nor bloated.
The tool surface covers the domain comprehensively: phone number reputation, scanning suspicious messages, finding official numbers, listing recent scam domains, and providing aggregate statistics. There are no obvious dead ends or missing core operations.
