Trust Onion Scam Check
REMOTE · TRUSTONION.IO
Verified AI voice-clone scam incidents, loss stats, and a family verification protocol. Keyless.
Available components
Last scanned (15 hours ago)
Scores higher than 87% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Security
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 Security80
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- No authorisation is required to call this server. Nothing on it is marked destructive, but we can't show that an anonymous caller can only read: full credit needs the server to list at least one tool and every tool to be verifiably read-only. We use a best-effort check of tool names and descriptions to tell read-only tools from tools that change things, so some genuinely read-only tools may not get full credit. Names that start with a read verb (get, list, read, search and similar) and accurate readOnlyHint annotations help. Meet that to earn full credit, or require authorisation. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- The HSTS (Strict-Transport-Security) header is present. View diagnostics → Pass
- 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 Usability78
- 100% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Pass
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 839 tokens (~69/item across 12 items; 7 tools + 5 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management80
- Stability observed for 24 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage71
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 0% of tool parameters carry a description.Fail
- Structured output schemas are declared (100% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 7 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
Checks we ran (13)
- TLS certificate
- Authorization
- HTTPS
- HSTS header
- DNSSEC
- Transport
- Schema quality
- Stability
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
Does not apply to this hosted endpoint (2)
- Supply Chain SecurityScored on package channels only. This is a hosted endpoint, so there is nothing to install or inspect.
- Provenance & TransparencyScored on package channels only. This is a hosted endpoint, so there is nothing to install or inspect.
The score does not measure everything. What the score does not measure →
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 73 to 77. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 22 days of observed history at the previous scan, 23 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 67 to 70. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 20 days of observed history at the previous scan, 21 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 60 to 63. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 18 days of observed history at the previous scan, 19 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 53 to 57. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 16 days of observed history at the previous scan, 17 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 27 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 47 to 50. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 14 days of observed history at the previous scan, 15 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 25 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 40 to 43. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 12 days of observed history at the previous scan, 13 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 23 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 33 to 37. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 10 days of observed history at the previous scan, 11 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 20 Oct 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.
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://trustonion.io/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=trustonion.io | CN=YE1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 4 Oct 2026 | 2 Jan 2027 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 5ba16c18f54fb9536097cf4b2133f2f2b1a |
| SANs: trustonion.io | ||||||
| CN=YE1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 5ddd70dd31f801c85c186a7a04b80afe |
| 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 trustonion.io. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| io. | DS published | 38690 | 8 | Verified |
| trustonion.io. | No DS | 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 |
| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| strict-transport-security | max-age=63072000; includeSubDomains |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://trustonion.io/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://trustonion.io/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://trustonion.io:443/mcp |
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 →
assess_call_scenario Assess a suspicious call or message ~47
Deterministically match a described call or text to current scam hubs, red flags, and the recommended verification step. No external LLM is used.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| scenario | string | yes | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| asOf | string | yes | – |
| assessment | object | yes | – |
| citation | object | yes | – |
| contentRevision | string | yes | – |
| protocolVersion | string | yes | – |
| scenario | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
explain_scam_type Explain an AI scam type ~51
Explain a documented editorial scam pattern with published article evidence, or a Trust Onion topic hub with warning signs and protection steps. Editorial coverage is not a verified incident count.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| scamType | string | yes | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| asOf | string | yes | – |
| citation | object | yes | – |
| contentRevision | string | yes | – |
| kind | string | yes | – |
| protocolVersion | string | yes | – |
| scamType | object | yes | – |
| scope | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
get_incident Get a verified incident ~38
Get the full published Trust Onion case study for one verified incident by slug, including source reporting and prevention analysis.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | string | yes | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| asOf | string | yes | – |
| citation | object | yes | – |
| contentRevision | string | yes | – |
| incident | object | yes | – |
| protocolVersion | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
get_scam_stats Get current scam statistics ~47
Return the current Trust Onion Pulse summary (all time, or for one incident year), including conservative loss classifications. Only explicitly-USD losses are summed.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | integer | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| asOf | string | yes | – |
| citation | object | yes | – |
| contentRevision | string | yes | – |
| protocolVersion | string | yes | – |
| scope | string | yes | – |
| stats | object | yes | – |
| year | – | yes | – |
No examples provided.
get_verification_protocol Get the Three Words Check ~29
Return Trust Onion's five-step family verification protocol for suspicious calls, texts, and video calls.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| asOf | string | yes | – |
| citation | object | yes | – |
| contentRevision | string | yes | – |
| protocol | string | yes | – |
| protocolVersion | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
list_scam_types List documented scam patterns ~27
List the current editorial scam patterns and published article links, separately from verified incident statistics.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| asOf | string | yes | – |
| citation | object | yes | – |
| contentRevision | string | yes | – |
| data | array | yes | – |
| protocolVersion | string | yes | – |
| revision | string | yes | – |
| scope | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
search_incidents Search verified scam incidents ~156
Search verified, published Trust Onion Pulse (Voice Clone Scam Pulse) incidents by attack type, victim type, country, outcome, incident year, publication date range, and keyword. Returns compact summaries (newest first by default), a total count, and nextCursor for the next page. Call get_incident with a slug for full detail.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| attackType | string | – | – |
| country | string | – | – |
| cursor | string | – | – |
| keyword | string | – | – |
| limit | integer | – | – |
| outcome | string | – | – |
| since | string | – | – |
| sort | string | – | – |
| until | string | – | – |
| victimType | string | – | – |
| year | integer | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| appliedFilters | object | yes | – |
| asOf | string | yes | – |
| availableFilterValues | object | – | – |
| citation | object | yes | – |
| contentRevision | string | yes | – |
| incidents | array | yes | – |
| limit | integer | yes | – |
| nextCursor | – | yes | – |
| offset | integer | yes | – |
| protocolVersion | string | yes | – |
| returned | integer | yes | – |
| sort | string | yes | – |
| total | integer | yes | – |
No examples provided.
How do I install the Trust Onion Scam Check MCP server?
Trust Onion Scam Check is a hosted endpoint at https://trustonion.io/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 · trustonion.io
claude mcp add --transport http io-trustonion-scam-check 'https://trustonion.io/mcp'
What is the Trust Onion Scam Check MCP server?
Trust Onion Scam Check is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.trustonion/scam-check. Verified AI voice-clone scam incidents, loss stats, and a family verification protocol. Keyless. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://trustonion.io/mcp).
Is the Trust Onion Scam Check MCP server safe to use?
Trust Onion Scam Check scores 83 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 Trust Onion Scam Check MCP server expose?
Trust Onion Scam Check exposes 7 tools: search_incidents, get_incident, get_scam_stats, explain_scam_type, list_scam_types, and 2 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 395 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Trust Onion Scam Check MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to Trust Onion Scam Check without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the Trust Onion Scam Check MCP server still maintained?
Trust Onion Scam Check 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.
What did VerifyMCP test on the Trust Onion Scam Check MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 13 checks on Trust Onion Scam Check, covering TLS certificate, Authorization, HTTPS, HSTS header and 9 more. Supply Chain Security and Provenance & Transparency do not apply to a hosted endpoint, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.