Tanod MCP server

chainpeek: screen up to 1,000 URLs or domains against phishing lists

check_urls_phishing_batch

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check up to 1,000 URLs or domains for phishing or scams in one batch by matching hosts and parent domains against daily-refreshed public lists, without fetching URLs.

Instructions

chainpeek: Check up to 1,000 URLs or domains for phishing or scams in one batch. For one URL use check_url_phishing. Returns the URL check for 1-1,000 URLs, hosts or domains in one call. 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. One invalid item fails the whole batch with a 422 naming its index (not charged). Typically under 1 s for 1,000 items. Price: USD 0.0002 per item, at least USD 0.001 per call (1-1,000 items per call: USD 0.001-0.2). No free tier. The submitted text is never logged or stored. Docs: https://tanod.dev/learn/phishing-ofac-security-mcp-server.html

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes	1-1,000 URLs, hosts or domains (each at most 2,048 characters); only parsed, never fetched. Priced per item.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No
`error`	No	Only on an error result: an object {code, message}, or the reason string of an x402 PaymentRequired object.
`results`	No
`disclaimer`	No
`listed_count`	No
`list_updated_at`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that the URL is never fetched, names the two lists (PhishDestroy, Phishing.Database) and their refresh cadence, warns that an unlisted host is not cleared due to staleness, and specifies a 422 whole-batch failure naming the offending index (uncharged). Performance, pricing and privacy ('never logged or stored') are also disclosed.

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-loads purpose and the sibling routing, then layers cost, error and caveat details. Dense but nearly every sentence carries distinct decision-relevant information; slightly long, which keeps it off 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?

With an output schema present, return formatting need not be explained, and the description nonetheless covers pricing, failure semantics, performance, privacy and the staleness caveat. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'items' param already documents the 1-1,000 range, 2,048-char limit, and per-item pricing. The description reinforces the same facts but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 specific verb and resource ('Check up to 1,000 URLs or domains for phishing or scams in one batch') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the single-URL sibling check_url_phishing. An agent can select it correctly without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes single-URL callers to check_url_phishing and scopes itself to batch use ('1-1,000 URLs in one call'). The when-to-use decision is unambiguous, including the boundary at one item.

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

Deploy Server