SiteCheck Web Intel

Looks one http or https URL up in the PhishTank phishing

security_phishtank_check

Read-only

Looks one http or https URL up in the PhishTank phishing database (live checkurl lookup, no key). Returns whether PhishTank has the URL and, if so, its phish id, verification flag and validity. Absence means PhishTank has no record of this exact URL, not that it is safe. 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_phishtank_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Full http or https URL to check (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No
`valid`	No
`source`	No
`phishId`	No
`verified`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`inDatabase`	No
`verifiedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly and openWorld; the description adds substantial context beyond them: no API key, the specific result fields, the critical interpretation caveat that absence means no record rather than safe, and the exact cost model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402, failures uncharged). That pricing and caveat detail is exactly what an agent needs and cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then the caveat, then cost — a sensible order with no filler. It is somewhat dense as a single run-on paragraph and the pricing clause could be trimmed, but every sentence carries information.

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?

For a one-parameter lookup with an output schema, the definition covers everything that matters: what is queried, what is returned, how to interpret a negative result, and the payment requirement. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents 'Full http or https URL to check (required)'. The description's mention of http/https adds a small constraint restatement but nothing new about format, encoding, or edge cases, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: 'Looks one http or https URL up in the PhishTank phishing database', and specifies the mechanism (live checkurl lookup, no key). It also names the returned fields, so an agent can tell this apart from feed-style siblings such as security_openphish_feed or security_urlhaus_malware at a glance.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'Looks one ... URL' implicitly scopes the tool to single-URL lookups rather than bulk feeds, which is useful routing signal among many security siblings. However, no alternative is named (e.g., feed tools for bulk, urlhaus for malware URLs) and no explicit when-not-to-use condition is given.

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?