Skip to main content
Glama

Phishtank

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Send Pipeworx Feedback

pipeworx_feedback

Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist. Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise). ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server in your client (another vendor's Gmail, Splunk, Slack, etc. connector), we cannot fix it and reporting it here only delays you; file it with that server instead. Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists. Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt. Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed and what changed. The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap. Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day. Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNobug = something broke or returned wrong data. feature = a new tool or capability you wish existed. data_gap = data Pipeworx does not currently expose. praise = positive note. other = anything else.
contextNoOptional structured context: which tool, pack, or vertical this relates to.
messageNoYour feedback in plain text. Be specific (which tool, what error, what data was missing). 1-2 sentences typical, 2000 chars max.
claim_tokenNoRead the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / claim_token
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Read the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "type",
-  "message"
-]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes far beyond by disclosing the claim_token workflow, the rate limit of 5/day per identifier, that it's free and doesn't count against quota, and that the team reads digests daily. This is substantial behavioral context not derivable from annotations.

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?

The description is long but dense with valuable information; every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the purpose and then covers use cases, exclusions, token flow, and operational details. However, it is a single run-on paragraph; formatting with line breaks or bullets would improve scannability, so it doesn't get a 5.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (feedback submission vs. claim_token checking) and no output schema, the description covers return values, rate limits, quota, scope, and follow-up behavior. It fully explains the claimed_token mechanism and the types of feedback, making the tool predictable without any additional documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already gives rich descriptions for all four parameters, including enum meanings and claim_token behavior (100% coverage). The description adds extra semantics for the message parameter: don't paste user prompts, describe in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs. While not a huge lift, it does improve over schema-only understanding.

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 a clear action: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It specifies the verb and resource, then enumerates feedback categories (bug, feature, data_gap, praise), which fully defines the tool's scope. It also distinguishes from sibling research tools by explicitly limiting to feedback about Pipeworx's own connection.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: for bugs (wrong/stale data), features, data gaps, or praise. It also provides an exclusion: do not report tools from other MCP servers; file those elsewhere. This directly addresses alternatives and boundaries, making it a model example of usage guidance.

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