Safe or Scam
REMOTE · SCAM-CHECK.SAFE-OR-SCAM.WORKERS.DEV
Crypto scam checks (tokens, sites, wallets), chain reads, web page to Markdown, email checks.
Available components
Last scanned (3 hours ago)
Scores higher than 45% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Crypto and Web3
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Endpoint Security46
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to call this server, and 8 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Unverified
- HTTPS enforcement could not be verified: the plaintext port answered with HTTP 405, which proves neither a plaintext path nor enforcement. View diagnostics → Unverified
- HSTS check failed: the Strict-Transport-Security header is absent. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability75
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 890 tokens (~111/item across 8 items; 8 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management30
- Stability observed for 9 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage100
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 100% of tool parameters carry a description.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 8 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 9 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 4 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 23 to 27. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 7 days of observed history at the previous scan, 8 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 2 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 17 to 20. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 5 days of observed history at the previous scan, 6 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 31 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 10 to 13. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 3 days of observed history at the previous scan, 4 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 29 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 3 to 7. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 1 days of observed history at the previous scan, 2 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 28 Oct 26 0
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
- 27 Oct 26 60
First indexed and scored.
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 5 Nov 2026 · Probed https://scam-check.safe-or-scam.workers.dev/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=safe-or-scam.workers.dev | CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 26 Oct 2026 | 24 Jan 2027 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 67544166211bf0a54db1a82f347c9259bb7 |
| SANs: *.safe-or-scam.workers.dev, safe-or-scam.workers.dev | ||||||
| CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 4df3b15dd6c0784c507cd37b58e6f115 |
| CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 872165fc34b6e5fba8add5b3705fb53a |
| CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 6c8f1dc727c7117f7baf853ac980f9cd |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of scam-check.safe-or-scam.workers.dev. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| dev. | present | 60074 | 8 | Verified |
| workers.dev. | absent | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication No authorisation required
The endpoint answered without asking for a token. Anyone who knows the URL can reach it.
| Result | No authorisation required |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 200 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://scam-check.safe-or-scam.workers.dev/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://scam-check.safe-or-scam.workers.dev/mcp | Inconclusive | 405 |
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
check_email ~80
Check an email address before sending or signing someone up: valid format, domain exists and accepts mail (MX), throwaway/disposable domain, typo suggestions (gmial.com → gmail.com), role addresses (info@, support@), SPF/DMARC. Returns valid / risky / invalid with reasons.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| string | yes | Email address to check |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
check_token ~103
Is this crypto token a scam? Honeypot buy/sell simulation, hidden taxes, mint/freeze authority, hidden owner, blacklist, whale concentration, liquidity lock. Returns red/yellow/green with reasons. EVM chains + Solana.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | string | yes | Token contract address (0x...) or Solana mint |
| chain | string | yes | Chain: ethereum, bsc, base, arbitrum, polygon, optimism, avalanche, solana |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
check_wallet ~125
Is it safe to send crypto to this address, and is this wallet exposed? Checks scam, phishing, theft, sanctions and mixer links; risky or malicious token approvals (who can drain the wallet); contract vs personal wallet; brand-new 'poisoned' look-alike addresses. Returns red/yellow/green with reasons. EVM chains + Solana.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | string | yes | Wallet address (0x...) or Solana address |
| chain | string | yes | Chain: ethereum, bsc, base, arbitrum, polygon, optimism, avalanche, solana |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
check_website ~83
Is this website a crypto scam or phishing page? Phishing databases, domain age, look-alikes of 45+ crypto brands (MetaMask, Phantom, Binance...), seed-phrase requests, wallet-drainer code. Returns red/yellow/green with reasons.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | string | yes | Website address, e.g. example.com or https://example.com/path |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_token_info ~84
Read a token's on-chain details: name, symbol, decimals, total supply. Solana: supply, decimals, mint authority and freeze authority.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | string | yes | Token contract address (0x...) or Solana mint |
| chain | string | yes | Chain: ethereum, bsc, base, arbitrum, polygon, optimism, avalanche, solana |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_transaction ~103
Look up a transaction by hash: success/failed/pending, confirmations, time, sender, receiver, value, fee, method, decoded token and NFT transfers, and token approvals it granted (flags unlimited approvals). Solana: balance changes per account.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | string | yes | Chain: ethereum, bsc, base, arbitrum, polygon, optimism, avalanche, solana |
| hash | string | yes | Transaction hash (0x...) or Solana signature |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_wallet_balances ~132
Get a wallet's balances: native coin (ETH, BNB, POL, AVAX, SOL) and tokens. Solana: every SPL token held. EVM: popular tokens on the chain plus any token addresses you pass. Also returns transactions sent and whether the address is a contract.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | string | yes | Wallet address (0x...) or Solana address |
| chain | string | yes | Chain: ethereum, bsc, base, arbitrum, polygon, optimism, avalanche, solana |
| tokens | array | – | Optional extra EVM token addresses to include (max 20) |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
read_webpage ~105
Fetch any public web page and return clean Markdown of its main content (headings, lists, links, code), plus title and description. Strips menus, footers, ads and scripts so it is ready for an LLM. Not charged if the page can't be fetched.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_chars | number | – | Max characters to return (500-100000, default 20000) |
| url | string | yes | Page address, e.g. https://example.com/article |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Safe or Scam MCP server?
Safe or Scam is a hosted endpoint at https://scam-check.safe-or-scam.workers.dev/mcp, so there is nothing to install locally. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
remote · scam-check.safe-or-scam.workers.dev
claude mcp add --transport http dev-workers-safe-or-scam-scam-check-safe-or-scam 'https://scam-check.safe-or-scam.workers.dev/mcp'
What is the Safe or Scam MCP server?
Safe or Scam is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as dev.workers.safe-or-scam.scam-check/safe-or-scam. Crypto scam checks (tokens, sites, wallets), chain reads, web page to Markdown, email checks. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://scam-check.safe-or-scam.workers.dev/mcp).
Is the Safe or Scam MCP server safe to use?
Safe or Scam scores 64 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the Safe or Scam MCP server expose?
Safe or Scam exposes 8 tools: check_token, check_website, check_wallet, get_wallet_balances, get_transaction, and 3 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 815 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Safe or Scam MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to Safe or Scam without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the Safe or Scam MCP server still maintained?
Safe or Scam is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 5 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.