Tanod MCP server

chainpeek: screen a URL or domain against phishing lists

check_url_phishing

Read-onlyIdempotent

Screen a URL or domain against public phishing and scam lists to see if its host is listed and which sources flagged it. Treat results as a screening aid, not a clearance.

Instructions

chainpeek: Check if a URL or domain is phishing or a scam. For up to 1,000 URLs use check_urls_phishing_batch; for headers use check_security_headers. Returns whether a URL's host (or a domain) is on public phishing/scam domain lists: listed, the matched_domain, the sources that list it and shared_platform, with the lists' update time and a disclaimer. A screening aid: the host and its parent domains are matched against two public lists, PhishDestroy (CC0) and Phishing.Database (MIT), refreshed daily; the URL is never fetched. An unlisted host is not cleared: new phishing is on no list yet, and lists can be stale. Input that is not a URL, host or domain is a 422 invalid_input (not charged). Typically under 0.1 s (first call up to a few seconds). Price: USD 0.001. Free: 10 chain reads per IP per UTC day. The submitted text is never logged or stored. Docs: https://tanod.dev/learn/phishing-scam-url-checker-api.html

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No	URL, host or domain to screen (at most 2,048 characters); only parsed, never fetched.
`domain`	No	Alternative to url: a domain or host name.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`host`	No
`error`	No	Only on an error result: an object {code, message}, or the reason string of an x402 PaymentRequired object.
`input`	No
`listed`	No
`sources`	No
`disclaimer`	No
`matched_domain`	No
`list_updated_at`	No
`shared_platform`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the two named source lists and their refresh cadence, the fact the URL is never fetched, the 422 invalid_input behavior (not charged), latency, $0.001 price, 10 free reads per IP per UTC day, and a no-logging privacy guarantee.

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 the purpose and sibling routing, then moves through mechanics, caveats, and commercial terms in a logical order. Every sentence carries information, though the run-on middle paragraph about lists, return fields, and latency is denser than it needs to be.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet the description still names the key fields and, more importantly, warns that absence from the lists is not a clearance. For a screening tool whose failure mode is false reassurance, that caveat is the essential missing piece and it is present.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the 3 baseline applies and the description exceeds it: it clarifies that the input is only parsed and never fetched, that host and parent domains are matched, and that the two parameters are alternatives rather than complements. These details go beyond the schema text without fully specifying precedence when both are supplied.

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 specific verb and resource ('Check if a URL or domain is phishing or a scam') and immediately differentiates itself from siblings by naming check_urls_phishing_batch for volume and check_security_headers for headers. An agent can select this tool without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit routing: batches of up to 1,000 URLs go to check_urls_phishing_batch, header checks to check_security_headers, and the remaining single-URL/single-domain case is implicitly this tool. It also sets expectations about what negative results mean ('an unlisted host is not cleared'), which is usage guidance in the truest sense.

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

Deploy Server