SiteCheck Web Intel

Checks a URL or host against the OpenPhish public phishing

security_openphish_feed

Read-only

Checks a URL or host against the OpenPhish public phishing feed (about 300 currently active phishing URLs, updated continuously). Returns whether the exact URL or any URL on the same host is listed, the feed size and up to 5 example URLs. Not listed does not mean safe; the feed is short and changes fast. Related tools on this server, for a different need: security_cve_details_feed when you need Vulnerability trend for a vendor from the NIST NVD: CVEs. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "security_openphish_feed"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	A full http or https URL, or a host name such as example.com (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`host`	No
`query`	No
`listed`	No
`source`	No
`feedSize`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`exactMatch`	No
`sampleUrls`	No
`urlsOnHost`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: feed size (~300 active URLs), continuous updates, exact-URL and same-host matching, returned fields, and the false-negative caveat. It also discloses per-call pricing and that failed calls are not charged. It does not cover authentication mechanics or rate limits, but the behavioral disclosure is substantial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded, and the key caveat and pricing are useful. However, the description is a dense paragraph that includes an unrelated CVE-feed cross-reference and repeats return details already covered by the output schema. The structure is serviceable but not tight.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description provides enough context: what is checked, what is returned, the feed's limitations, and the cost model. It could be stronger by naming the closest phishing-feed alternatives, but otherwise it is complete enough for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter already documents that it accepts a full HTTP/HTTPS URL or a host name. The description restates URL or host semantics but does not add format constraints, validation rules, or edge-case behavior beyond the schema. The mention that the check covers the exact URL or any URL on the same host adds matching context, but not parameter-level detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: checks a URL or host against the OpenPhish public phishing feed. It also gives the feed size and update behavior, making the purpose concrete. However, it does not differentiate this from close phishing-check siblings such as security_phishtank_check or security_urlhaus_malware; the only sibling named is the unrelated security_cve_details_feed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus phishing alternatives like security_phishtank_check or security_urlhaus_malware. The only alternative mentioned is security_cve_details_feed, explicitly framed as a different need, so it does not help select among phishing checks. The caveat that 'not listed does not mean safe' informs result interpretation but not tool selection.

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

All SiteCheck Web Intel tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?