Skip to main content
Glama

Phishtank

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Generate llms.txt

generate_llms_txt
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL so AI crawlers (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity) can index the site cleanly. Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format. Output is a single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt. Useful for: getting a client's site indexed by AI, drafting llms.txt for your own project, or auditing how an AI crawler would see a competitor.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesFull URL of the site to summarize, e.g. "https://example.com" or a specific landing page.
max_linksNoMaximum number of link entries to include (default 25, max 50).

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits a standard markdown blob ready for deployment. This discloses the process, network dependency, and output format beyond the annotations, with no contradictions.

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 three sentences with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. It explains process, output, and use cases without redundancy, every sentence earning its place.

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 two-param read-only tool, the description covers the function, process, output format, and practical use cases. Despite no output schema, it specifies the output as a single text blob in llms.txt markdown, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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% (both url and max_links have detailed descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at baseline.

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 opens with 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL', which states the exact action, resource, and input. It further details the process (fetches, extracts title/description/key links) and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like ai_visibility_check or scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on generating the llms.txt artifact.

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 explicit use cases ('getting a client's site indexed by AI, drafting llms.txt for your own project, or auditing how an AI crawler would see a competitor'), giving clear context on when to use. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the use cases are specific enough to guide selection.

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