Skip to main content
Glama

Phishtank

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Check Url

check_url
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check if a URL is a known phishing site in the PhishTank database. Returns whether it is a phish, verification status, and details URL. Example: check_url("http://suspicious-site.example.com/login").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe full URL to check for phishing (e.g., "http://example.com/fake-login")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe URL that was checked
is_phishYesWhether the URL is confirmed as a phishing site
phish_idYesPhishTank ID for the phishing entry, or null if not in database
verifiedYesWhether the phishing entry has been verified, or null if unknown
checked_atYesISO timestamp when the URL was checked by PhishTank API
detail_pageYesURL to PhishTank detail page, or null if not in database
in_databaseYesWhether the URL is in the PhishTank database
verified_atYesTimestamp when the phishing entry was verified, or null if unverified

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds that the tool queries the PhishTank database and returns phish status, verification status, and a details URL, which provides useful behavioral context beyond the safety hints.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise, with two tightly worded sentences and a representative example. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids unnecessary details, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple, read-only lookup tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what it does, what it returns, and a usage example. No critical missing context.

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?

The schema provides full coverage of the 'url' parameter with a clear description and examples, so the description's example usage adds marginal value. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: checking a URL against the PhishTank database for phishing status. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('URL'), and the example further clarifies usage. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which are phishing-specific.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to determine if a URL is a known phishing site). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given the narrow scope and no obvious overlapping siblings, the usage situation is clear.

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

All Phishtank toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The server is named 'Phishtank' but only one tool (check_url) relates to phishing. The remaining 31 tools cover a wide range of unrelated topics (data research, prediction markets, memory, etc.), many with overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research). This makes it extremely difficult for an agent to select the right tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix conventions inconsistently: some use underscores (ai_visibility_check, check_url), some are camelCase (ask_pipeworx, bet_research), and others are compound phrases. There is no predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count1/5

With 32 tools, the count is high, but only one aligns with the server name 'Phishtank' (check_url). The vast majority belong to an entirely different domain (Pipeworx tools), making the tool count severely inappropriate for the server's stated purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a phishing detection server, the tool surface is severely incomplete. It lacks essential tools like report_phish, verify_phish, get_stats, etc. The single phishing tool (check_url) is insufficient, while the other 31 tools are completely out of scope.

Resources